On a related note, Inspiring Philosophy just posted a video you might find interesting, regarding the historical context of the event, entitled; Exodus Rediscovered: Documentary.
Good timing for Passover, maybe I'll check that out soon.
Thanks, and keep checking back as I update this fairly regularly. In fact, you can subscribe (at the top of the page in the blue box labeled Subscribe!
That was fantastic! Inspiring Philosophy's videos never let me down in terms of quality of research and interesting subject matter. Someone in the comments section of this video said that he is Agnostic; that is certainly hard to believe!
I did some research and found Capturing Christianity podcast, which refers to Inspiring Philosophy as a theist, which honestly makes a lot more sense.
I wrote the following comment, which I think answers his initial question about the dating of the Exodus discussed near the beginning of the video:
According to Jewish sources, the First Temple was completed in 833 BCE, not 966. Further, the Jewish tradition records that the slavery in Egypt only lasted 210 years (although the original decreed number was 430 years). Working backward from 833 BCE, and with the slavery being 210 years long, the period of slavery began in around 1522 BCE, 28 years after the beginning of the New Kingdom (1550 BCE), i.e., during the right time. If you use the 430 year figure, this puts the slavery beginning in 1742 BCE, during the Middle Kingdom, which is the wrong time!
I was finally able to watch the video all the way through. I wanted to see it, then read your comments, but right after viewing it, Michael Jones (Inspiring Philosophy) took it down!! He posted on facebook that after further research, he believes that the time frame is off, and will do a video to replace it. Kudos, to him at least for admitting his error! That had to be tough! As to Michael being an agnostic, his content doesn't support it, and Cameron Bertuzzi (Capturing Christianity) is a good friend of his, so I would believe Cameron.
Haha, I see; I'll have to wait for his new one, if he makes one.
For some reason I actually copied and pasted my original comment on this page (above), so you can see what I wrote.
The part that I didn't copy was that the Jewish tradition records that other slaves left Egypt along with the Jews. They are attributed with conceiving of the idea of worshiping the Golden Calf.
The other part was that the Hebrew word for "evil," "ra," is basically the same as the name of the Egyptian deity "Rah." This is relevant in terms of what Jones was saying because it indicates a familiarity with the Egyptian pantheon. In context, when Moses asks the Pharaoh for permission to leave Egypt for a three-day journey to sacrifice animals, the Pharaoh calls him a liar on the account that Moses asked to bring the children along, and "everyone knows that children don't offer sacrifices!" The Pharaoh told him, "See that Rah is opposite your faces." In our own understanding, he used his idolatrous rites to see the future (apparently invoking Rah), a word that doubles as "evil."
Of course, we believe that Moses dictated the entire Five Books of Moses from God, so his familiarity with the Egyptian pantheon is not the reason that he accurately referred to Rah.
Continuing our conversation from the Tovi Singer channel on YT. My problems with the concept of an Oral Law and the NOAHCHIDE laws and lack of support in the Tanakh for this. Firstly I would use Exodus 12:49 as support for one law being for both the native born or the foreigner. Also the prophet Isaiah in chapter 56 states that anyone who will take hold of the covenant will be made greater than a son or daughter. It destroys the idea that the covenant is only for the Native born or that is a different law for the foreigner. As far as the mosaic law; it was meant to be the light to the nations. It can’t be that light if it’s not what is given to the nations. The idea that a different law is given to the Nations isn’t supported in Tanakh. Particularly those who are wanting to take hold of the covenant. One might argue no oral law exists as Tanakh says ALL the laws that God gave to Moses were written down. Exodus 24:4 States this explicitly. That doesnt leave much room for an Oral law. Lastly I want to discuss the problem with a Noahchide law that complicates this even more. What about the 10 lost tribes of Israel? The Tanakh says that the northern tribes were many more in number than in the southern kingdom of Judah. Even today Jews around the world are a small fraction of the people upon the earth yet if we are to believe the promise made to Abraham then our numbers would be like the sand of the sea and the stars of the sky. I happen to believe in the promises of God and it’s very likely that most people alive today are descended from Abraham. We see that it’s true with Arabs who claim lineage to Abraham through Ishmael. How many Jews even have been force converted in the Middle East for millennia into Islam and Christianity in Europe. What service to them is it to have them follow a Noahchide law? This is why one law for all people makes the most sense. For God to reconcile the nations to himself it would have to be under one law for one Kingdom. Also there is no way to know who are Israelites from the lost tribes. You are very likely categorizing them out of ignorance as gentiles. This is why we need to embrace the Tanakh and teach what was given at Sinai. I do not see a different law given to the great multitude that came out of Egypt so we can confident there are not a different set of laws for non Israelites. We see this tradition with Jacob as well when he adopted Joseph’s half Egyptian sons Ephraim and Manasseh as his own. The argument of the law only given at Sinai is for the Jew is an extremely weak argument for some other reasons as well. Let’s consider the stories of Abel and Cain bringing sacrifices. How did Abel know what sacrifices were acceptable? Or Noah who knew to bring additional pairs or clean animals for sacrifice and food? Lastly look at the passage about Abraham and his sacrifices made were all inline with the law and God even says he followed all the laws and ordnances. How could Abraham have done so if they were not given through all of human history? The idea of a Noahchide law is a man made concept. Any laws given prior to Sinai were for all men and are reflected in the same ones given to Moses. Thank you Yaniv for the invite to post here to continue a friendly and respectful discourse on the Torah and to pursue to the truth for us all who seek YHVH and his ways.
8 comments:
Chag Pesach Sameach!
On a related note, Inspiring Philosophy just posted a video you might find interesting, regarding the historical context of the event, entitled; Exodus Rediscovered: Documentary.
Good timing for Passover, maybe I'll check that out soon.
Thanks, and keep checking back as I update this fairly regularly. In fact, you can subscribe (at the top of the page in the blue box labeled Subscribe!
That was fantastic! Inspiring Philosophy's videos never let me down in terms of quality of research and interesting subject matter. Someone in the comments section of this video said that he is Agnostic; that is certainly hard to believe!
I did some research and found Capturing Christianity podcast, which refers to Inspiring Philosophy as a theist, which honestly makes a lot more sense.
I wrote the following comment, which I think answers his initial question about the dating of the Exodus discussed near the beginning of the video:
According to Jewish sources, the First Temple was completed in 833 BCE, not 966. Further, the Jewish tradition records that the slavery in Egypt only lasted 210 years (although the original decreed number was 430 years). Working backward from 833 BCE, and with the slavery being 210 years long, the period of slavery began in around 1522 BCE, 28 years after the beginning of the New Kingdom (1550 BCE), i.e., during the right time. If you use the 430 year figure, this puts the slavery beginning in 1742 BCE, during the Middle Kingdom, which is the wrong time!
I was finally able to watch the video all the way through. I wanted to see it, then read your comments, but right after viewing it, Michael Jones (Inspiring Philosophy) took it down!! He posted on facebook that after further research, he believes that the time frame is off, and will do a video to replace it. Kudos, to him at least for admitting his error! That had to be tough! As to Michael being an agnostic, his content doesn't support it, and Cameron Bertuzzi (Capturing Christianity) is a good friend of his, so I would believe Cameron.
Haha, I see; I'll have to wait for his new one, if he makes one.
For some reason I actually copied and pasted my original comment on this page (above), so you can see what I wrote.
The part that I didn't copy was that the Jewish tradition records that other slaves left Egypt along with the Jews. They are attributed with conceiving of the idea of worshiping the Golden Calf.
The other part was that the Hebrew word for "evil," "ra," is basically the same as the name of the Egyptian deity "Rah." This is relevant in terms of what Jones was saying because it indicates a familiarity with the Egyptian pantheon. In context, when Moses asks the Pharaoh for permission to leave Egypt for a three-day journey to sacrifice animals, the Pharaoh calls him a liar on the account that Moses asked to bring the children along, and "everyone knows that children don't offer sacrifices!" The Pharaoh told him, "See that Rah is opposite your faces." In our own understanding, he used his idolatrous rites to see the future (apparently invoking Rah), a word that doubles as "evil."
Of course, we believe that Moses dictated the entire Five Books of Moses from God, so his familiarity with the Egyptian pantheon is not the reason that he accurately referred to Rah.
Praying for Israel
Continuing our conversation from the Tovi Singer channel on YT.
My problems with the concept of an Oral Law and the NOAHCHIDE laws and lack of support in the Tanakh for this.
Firstly I would use Exodus 12:49 as support for one law being for both the native born or the foreigner. Also the prophet Isaiah in chapter 56 states that anyone who will take hold of the covenant will be made greater than a son or daughter. It destroys the idea that the covenant is only for the Native born or that is a different law for the foreigner.
As far as the mosaic law; it was meant to be the light to the nations. It can’t be that light if it’s not what is given to the nations.
The idea that a different law is given to the Nations isn’t supported in Tanakh. Particularly those who are wanting to take hold of the covenant. One might argue no oral law exists as Tanakh says ALL the laws that God gave to Moses were written down. Exodus 24:4 States this explicitly. That doesnt leave much room for an Oral law.
Lastly I want to discuss the problem with a Noahchide law that complicates this even more. What about the 10 lost tribes of Israel? The Tanakh says that the northern tribes were many more in number than in the southern kingdom of Judah. Even today Jews around the world are a small fraction of the people upon the earth yet if we are to believe the promise made to Abraham then our numbers would be like the sand of the sea and the stars of the sky. I happen to believe in the promises of God and it’s very likely that most people alive today are descended from Abraham. We see that it’s true with Arabs who claim lineage to Abraham through Ishmael. How many Jews even have been force converted in the Middle East for millennia into Islam and Christianity in Europe. What service to them is it to have them follow a Noahchide law? This is why one law for all people makes the most sense. For God to reconcile the nations to himself it would have to be under one law for one Kingdom. Also there is no way to know who are Israelites from the lost tribes. You are very likely categorizing them out of ignorance as gentiles. This is why we need to embrace the Tanakh and teach what was given at Sinai. I do not see a different law given to the great multitude that came out of Egypt so we can confident there are not a different set of laws for non Israelites. We see this tradition with Jacob as well when he adopted Joseph’s half Egyptian sons Ephraim and Manasseh as his own.
The argument of the law only given at Sinai is for the Jew is an extremely weak argument for some other reasons as well. Let’s consider the stories of Abel and Cain bringing sacrifices. How did Abel know what sacrifices were acceptable? Or Noah who knew to bring additional pairs or clean animals for sacrifice and food? Lastly look at the passage about Abraham and his sacrifices made were all inline with the law and God even says he followed all the laws and ordnances. How could Abraham have done so if they were not given through all of human history? The idea of a Noahchide law is a man made concept. Any laws given prior to Sinai were for all men and are reflected in the same ones given to Moses.
Thank you Yaniv for the invite to post here to continue a friendly and respectful discourse on the Torah and to pursue to the truth for us all who seek YHVH and his ways.
Post a Comment