These points are your BS not mine. Sorry buddy, better go back to night school.
First off, learn to use quotes. It's not that difficult.
Second, let's start with this:
Yes, it is what I said but I also gave you the article knowing full well there is a Torah dated some 200 years earlier which actually makes it about the 3300 years old we spoke of earlier. You just want to bash someone and that is fine, I am still here.
Speaking of night school, I suggest you sign up, because in the real world, a text written circa 1155-1225 is not 3300 years old, it is between 789 and 859 years old. For proof, let's pull up some grade school math:
2014 - 1225 = 789 years' difference
2014 - 1155 = 859 years' difference
Now your article said the older bibles predated the newly ID'd Torah by over 200 years. Let's be generous and say 300 years. That means that those older bibles are 1089 to 1159 years old. In case that math, also, is too difficult for you:
200 years older than 1225 is the year 1025. As I went with 300 above, that means we're working with the year 925.
200 years older than 1155 is the year 955. As I went with 300 above, that means we're working with the year 855.
2014 - 925 = 1089 years' difference
2014 - 855 = 1159 years' difference
The next thing your article mentioned was having scraps of the Torah from the 8th century. Notice that it's not '8th century BCE', but '8th century', meaning the 700's. So, let's say that the scraps were written in 700 CE. Falling back to grade-school math, 2014 - 700 = 1314. That means that the oldest known scraps of the Torah are approximately 1300 years old, not 3300. As to the origin, your article didn't even touch on when the Torah was actually written.
So no, your article does NOT prove that the Torah is 3300 years old, and I have twisted nothing. You are the only one lying in this thread - even Aziz is at least restricting himself to the truth as he believes it. Sure, he's twisting things just as much as he possibly can, but he's not intentionally lying.
And you are doing as I stated in one of my previous post,,, Keep it up, Your integrity is slipping away.
Yes, because quoting facts and figures and citing references shows SUCH a lack of integrity. Then again, if integrity has come to mean "Rages at unbelievers, lies, twists and misrepresents facts, and acts unbelievably arrogant", then I will revel in my lack thereof.
Holy crap, did you just cite a source? And you're not completely misrepresenting what it says this time?!?
Will wonders never cease!
Although, using this particular source is much like having the Koch brothers in charge of campaign finance reform or health insurance companies writing insurance law; ie - a serious conflict of interest, as the source itself has a vested interest in the data it is providing, which pretty much guarantees a slant. Then again, I'd have a better chance of throwing a Scrabble set onto the floor and having them form a Shakespearean sonnet than I'd have of seeing you use an unbiased source, so I'll take what I can get.
I'll note, however, that your site only uses a single footnote, and overlooks a lot of things, ranging from disagreement over the length of his reign (while documents refer to a 94 year reign, egyptologists can only find references to him in a 62-64 year period). In fact, the 94 year reign idea came from documents written over a thousand years after his death.
(Hans Goedicke, The Death of Pepi II-Neferkare" in Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 15, (1988), pp.111–121)
Your site picks Pepi II and runs with the 94 year reign idea simply in order to match up with the fable in the Bible. Still, if the fable requires a reign of over 80 years, then I can't fault one for trying to find one. Assuming, of course, that the 94 year reign from the papers written a thousand years later are correct, as opposed to the 64 year reign from contemporary writings.
Of course, your site then gets his successor's name completely wrong - it's
Merenre Nemtyemsaf II, not
Antyemsaf. (The latter name has been known to be wrong for some time.)
Of course, so far, all we have is that the Moses story is placed around the time of someone who may have been Pepi II. There's still no proof that the Exodus actually happened, any more than Assassin's Creed's being set in Renaissance Italy (which, like Pepi II, actually existed) means that the Assassins and the Templars actually went to war.
Unfortunately for your chosen site, the fall of the Old Kingdom was due to far more than a sudden, God-inspired famine. There was civil war between the nomarchs, as Pepi's children and heirs almost certainly died before him, and it was coupled with a 100 year-long drought.
(Jean-Daniel Stanley et al. (2003). "Nile flow failure at the end of the Old Kingdom, Egypt: Strontium isotopic and petrologic evidence".) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22nd_century_BC_drought)
***
Unfortunately, in your post after this one, you resort to the
Gish Gallop - shotgunning a bunch of poorly written, worse-researched links that take up more time to refute than anyone can possibly spend in replying to a single post. What I see skimming through them, however, are basic errors, such as assuming facts not in evidence (the people in pictographs are OBVIOUSLY Semitics! And thus MUST be the tribes of Israel!) (Moses was actually kind of Egypt, and his mother was really Hatshepsut, becuase it's CRAZY to think that SHE could have ruled Egypt!). Oh, there's a terribly-written book called "Moses in the Heiroglyphs", which has one of the most brutal reviews I've seen in some time written
HERE. There's an article about someone describing his new paper, which even comes with quotes by an attendee who wasn't impressed, pointing out
“If, in fact, hundreds of thousands of Jews left Egypt, then you should be able to see new settlement patterns in Israel — and archaeologists have excavated Israel, and they don’t see a change in the building structure, in the pottery, all the things you think would change if there was a huge immigrant influx,” Wolpe said.
You have another page trying to shoehorn Moses into the Hatshepsut timeline (again), with no supporting evidence whatsoever. And you have a forum post that simply quotes one of the other links you made.
What you don't have is any proof whatsoever that the Exodus actually happened. Nothing in the historical or archaeological records showing over 600,000 slaves up and leaving Egypt, getting lost for 40 years, and then invading Canaan. The Egyptians were meticulous recordkeepers, and yet their records say NOTHING about this kind of event - one which would have disastrously HAMMERED their entire economy. There is not a single word about the mother of all slave rebellions.
Hell, while doing some quick research, page after page after page from the pro-Exodus crew freely admit that there's not a shred of archaological evidence.
***
Anyway, while I commend you for finding a link that actually tries to say what you said it does, what I asked you for was honest proof. It's a shame that your 'proof' consists of people trying to shoehorn the Moses story into Egyptian history, rather than, you know, actual proof. Things like a record of the Israelite slaves rebelling and leaving, or evidence of a migration of a large nation's worth of people into Israel.
As much as you refuse to believe it, a single non-forged Old Kingdom text describing the exodus of over a half million Israelite slaves after ten obviously miraculous events would be unassailable proof. Too bad it doesn't exist.
