Daniel

Back when? Are you asking "why did not anyone else record it?" Besides the Jewish people who have it in our "holy" scripture? You're asking why there are no other corroborating sources?

... possibly because the two nations have a common ancestry. A common ancestry before even the Egyptian 'nation' or any other 'nation' existed. Why not? 1) The fact that it comes from a bible story should not automatically render it false. 2) it is common sense that two neighboring cultures would have common ancestry at some point in their cultural history because of their geographic proximity. Excellent Agreeing is good. How we got to this point, doesn't matter to me.

Sure. Why not?

Basically yes.

From the article: "We can then also conclude that Jesus’ birth was not on the Feast of Tabernacles or on Passover, as others have proposed. Both the Feast of Tabernacles and Passover occur in the middle of lunar months; therefore, there can be no new moon, as required by Revelation 12:1-6." I think the author is mistaken. On a "new-moon" the moon is missing from the sky. In Rev 12:1 the moon is there. On the 1st of Tishrei, there is no moon. It is completely occluded. Therefore it cannot be Rosh-Hashanna. There is not a moon visible in the sky. Passover, BTW, is the 15th of Nissan. The middle of the month. A full moon.

Thank you. I asked because Nissan and Tishrei are a pairing. ... Reading it now .

My recollection is that Jesus would have been born in the month of Nissan. Passover season. Is the Feast of Trumpets the Jewish New Year? When we blow the Shofar ( a trumpet )?

The best example of Judaism's inclusive middle-path comes from our observance of the holiday of Sukkot. It is our unity-festival. Lev. 23:40 ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון פרי עץ הדר כפת תמרים וענף עץ־עבת וערבי־נחל ושמחתם לפני יהוה אלהיכם שבעת ימים׃ And you shall take on the first day the boughs of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days. Each of these 4 represent a different sort of person. Some have wisdom, some have good deeds. Some have both. Some have neither. On Sukkot we gather and bring these 4 kinds together and celebrate together. Each year we construct a new set of the four kinds for ritual use during the festival. One per household. Here's mine. The holiday ended last week. The harmonious-contrast is clear, isn't it? Shape, color, leaves, even the scent. The myrtle, and the etrog ( the fruit ) both have contrasting yet harmonious smell.

Ummmmm. The Talmud teaches the opposite...White and black are contrasting-and-harmonious. White+White is too white. אמר ר"ל גבוה לא ישא גבוהית שמא יצא מהן תורן ננס לא ישא ננסת שמא יצא מהם אצבעי לבן לא ישא לבנה שמא יצא מהם בוהק שחור לא ישא שחורה שמא יצא מהן טפוח: Reish Lakish says: tall should not marry tall, lest there emerge [ a child ] extremely tall. A dwarf should not marry a dwarf, lest there emerge [ a child ] who is exceptionally short. White should not marry white ( לבן לא ישא לבנה ) , lest there emerge [ a child ] extremely pale. Dark should not marry dark, lest there emerge [ a child ] extremely dark. https://www.sefaria.org/Bekhorot.45b.8?vhe=Wikisource_Talmud_Bavli&lang=bi Judaism is a middle path religion, but not a middle path like others. Other middle paths exclude the extremes. Judaism intends to bring them together, contrasting-and-harmonious pairs, in the right time, place, and way. It is a middle path of inclusion.

It doesn't need to be through Noah. If the two nations, Egypt and Israel, have a common lineage which split at some point in their development, then, that would explain the similarities and the differences in their theology and mythology. "Borrowing" is not the only explanation. Further, it's highly unlikely that Judaism was "constructed" in the manner which you're describing. Think about it. According to your theory, ( as I understand it, which could be wrong ), approx 500 bce, the Jewish people had settled ( forcibly ) in a land which belonged to other nations. Then they were exiled in Babylonia where Judaism was constructed, their prior ethnic lineage was completely and absolutely erased and replaced with a manufactured ethnicity which flip-flopped reality positioning themselves, the Jewish leaders ( the levite cult of renegade Egyptian scribes ), as the priests who ruled by the edge of a sword. Every single Jewish person in the Israelite nation agreed to this new-version of history, everyone dropped their prior family history and religion and adopted a new-one ( borrowed from the Egyptians, Persians, Greeks and Romans), all at once, all the Jews, all together during the Babylonian exile. It would need to be a complete ethno-genesis, because, for over 2000 years none of us had considered that the entire story was fabricated such that we are not Jews, we're Egyptians who stole the religion and mythology form others. It's completely unrealistic. There was an ethno-genesis, but not in that extremely unrealistic manner. The best example to look at is American ethno-genesis. It is similar to the ethno-genesis of Israel. Land was purchased, but there was a bitter war, which lasted many years, much blood was shed. At the end of the war, a new nation emerged, America. Many, many new Americans, however, retain their prior ethnicity as German-Americans, African-Americans, Spanish-Americans, Dutch-Americans. Those who were native to the land often refer to themselves as Native-Americans. The point is, in an ethno-genesis like this, it is impossible to completely and thoroughly erase the prior ethnicity. Even if there is a conspiracy to re-write history during the Babylonian exile and in the years following, it would be impossible to erase everyone's ethnicity. If Judaism was constructed in the Babylonian exile, then there would be some Jews who identify with their historically correct ethnicity. Some of them would have retained their true history of their heritage. If what you've written ( and implied ) is true, then every single Jewish family which returned to Israel after exile is a liar and thief. And when they returned to Israel, all of those liars were able to convince the other Jews who remained in Israel to erase their heritage as well, even though there was a bitter civil war with factions who didn't trust each other or work together. It is highly unlikely that the Judeans ( the tribe of Judah, the ones in power ) would have been able to convince the Northern Kingdom to go along with the conspiracy. They were enemies. ( Generally. It's not a black/white dichotomy ). Let's suppose, in theory, that the Jewish leadership, the levites, the renegade Egyptian scribes, perpetrated their conspiracy, their ethno-genesis, stealing from the Egyptians and Persians, by force. Let's suppose that any Jewish person with good morals who did not agree to go a long with the new-and-improved, but completely fabricated, cultural history, was murdered. Even then, there would the story of the slaughters, the murders, the intimidation. This is why conspiracy theories fail. The theory may have a legitimate foundation, basis for inquiry, but the theory balloons into an epic, very creative, narrative which is wholly unrealistic to the point of being absurd. Not the whole world. Just these two neighboring nations. Both nations emerged from the same region? They are close to each other? You didn't consider that the two nations, Israel and Egypt, would have similarities naturally? As a natural consequence of their physical proximity?

There's not much in the written Torah about them. This leaves a lot of room for creative interpretation. However, for what it's worth, all three are "blessed" by God at the beginning of Gen 9 after the flood. ויברך אלהים את־נח ואת־בניו ויאמר להם פרו ורבו ומלאו את־הארץ׃ And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. Then, later, Ham, the father of Canaan is cursed by Noah for dishonoring him. 9:24 וייקץ נח מיינו וידע את אשר־עשה לו בנו הקטן׃ And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him. 9:25 ויאמר ארור כנען עבד עבדים יהיה לאחיו׃ And he said, Cursed be [ Ham father of ] Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers. As far as I know, this curse was never fulfilled. So, it's concluded that Noah's curse didn't work. This makes sense because God's blessing cannot be amended or overruled by Noah. This greatly reduces the likelihood that the text agrees with a race-based pejorative of Ham. Wikipedia has an article on it : LINK While Genesis 9 never says that Ham was black, he became associated with black skin, through folk etymology deriving his name from a similar, but actually unconnected, word meaning "dark" or "brown". The next stage are certain fables according to ancient Jewish traditions. According to one legend preserved in the Babylonian Talmud, Ham broke a prohibition on sex aboard the ark and "was smitten in his skin" as punishment; However, in the Talmud this skin punishment is not described as hereditary or linked to slavery, and in other ancient Jewish sources black skin is seen as beautiful rather than disfiguring. According to another legend, Noah cursed Ham because he castrated his father. A link between blackness and slavery becomes more heavily implied in the discussions of early Christian writers like Origen. The suggestion that Canaan was the ancestor of dark-skinned people enters the Biblical tradition with the fourth century Syriac Christian Cave of Treasures. ... It originated in the 4th century. Genesis 9:19 שלשה אלה בני־נח ומאלה נפצה כל־הארץ׃ These are the three sons of Noah; and from them was the whole earth peopled .

I apologize, what is it that you're referring to? "historical certainty" doesn't exist in that region during that period of time. The earliest Archeological examples of Jewish practices are the temples. The structure of these temples includes the precise details described in the Torah. The shape of the altar, the 4 horns on the altar, the presence of blood, and, and remains of the consecration oil have been found. The Archeological dating of these is around 1000 bce. The religion would necessarily be older than that. It would take at least 200 years to develop a religious infrastructure to support a temple of this size. Even if the theology and the religious practices are borrowed, setting up the logistics to support a temple like this takes time. These were big, busy temples. It's known the extent, how often, the temple was being used due to the amount of animal bones left over from the offerings. It's known the temples are Jewish because they are monotheistc. They have 1 altar for their one God, and an attached "holy-of-holies". The other neighboring temples have multiple altars for multiple gods. Also, the neighboring temples had pig bones, the Jewish temples did not. So, the earliest historical evidence of Judaism, the religion, is 1000bce. As I said previously, there is no certainty. But, the earliest evidence of Jews, the people, are the Shasu. But, it's not "certain", it's the most likely, best fit, candidate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shasu#Shasu_of_Yhw

I'm very busy. This time of year is always very busy. It's the Jewish high holiday season. It's true. I prioritize the most obvious mistakes and omissions. I've also heard these theories you're posting before, so, I not curious about what you're writing. I'm much more interested in what others are writing about. What were/are those ends? And, what you're missing are the plausible alternatives to your theory. If the two cultures have common ancestry, ( for example through Noah ) then it would explain both the similarities and the differences in their religious practices and mythology. It's equally plausible, but, it seems you haven't considered it.

@Thrice Daily, I have not traveled to the Middle East yet. But I would like to someday.

I agree the word faith has a lot of baggage. Maybe a better word is: "wonder"? The context of comment is magic as defined / described by western-occult schools of thought. My position is simply that, magic requires a sense of wonder. If it is lacking that, it's no longer magic. It's science.

It's not radical or unknown. It's a theory whose certainty is exaggerated by ignorance and false assumptions. Almost all of the examples of so-called borrowing dissolve under rational examination. Those who object to faith, suddenly become extremely religious in their devotion to their "knowledge" rejecting any facts which challenges it with moderation.

@Sherman Krebbs, this is what I was talking about.

Maybe I'll check it out to see what mistakes were made, and what information was omitted.

Yes, your faith in the "scholar" is noted. If you read the post above, you'll see that there are 2 good similarities in the list. The rest are either common sense which anyone can think of on their own, no borrowing needed, or, they're not matches other than a few matching words in an English translation which does not do justice to the meaning of the Hebrew text.

Yes. Let's look. In the Torah, it's written in verse 1, the heavens and the earth existed in/with God, but not in a material form. That's a big difference. In Judaism it's written in the Torah, we are created in a shadow in a shadow ( בצלמו בצלם ) of the divine. ויברא אלהים את־האדם בצלמו בצלם אלהים ברא אתו זכר ונקבה ברא אתם׃ Hmmm. I wonder what happened before and after this. I wonder how many differences are being ignored and omitted from the Hymn to Ptah. Other than that, this is a good similarity. There is an Egyptian creation myth where a God rests at the completion. What? Stop the presses! There's an Egyptian story of abundance? In the land of Yaa? And there's a Jewish story of abundance? OMG! What are the odds? ^^ Sarcasm ^^ BUZZZZZZZZ! Wrong answer. This is the opposite of Judaism and the Torah. It's not a match. Pharaoh is a physical human being. God in the Torah has no physical form, but appears in many forms. Wow. What a profound and innovative idea. No one could possibly come up with that on their own without borrowing it. ^^ Sarcasm ^^ You've compared this with the story of Goliath, even though their completely different stories with completely different circumstances? But they both involve a duel, and they both involve sheilds, and an ax, and a battle cry? By those standards Stan Lee borrowed Spiderman from Dr. Seuss because both stories include a mischievous cat who turns out to be good. ( See the story of Black-Cat in Spectacular-Spiderman in the mid 80s ) It really doesn't take much, does it. Just a few words in common, and, it' concluded that the stories **must** be related. It's not far-fetched of an idea, that Judaism borrows from Egyptian religion, until the two are compared side-by-side in detail. Then it becomes silly. What a completely novel idea. No one can come up with that unless they borrowed it. Of course. ^^ Sarcasm ^^ Yes. God is considered a Judge and has a heavenly court in Judaism as well. It doesn't mean that this idea was borrowed. It's a natural conclusion anyone can come to on their own. Yes. The potter at the wheel is a common metaphor for God. Not unique. Not necessarily borrowed. But if it was, this is rather insignificant. The Jewish author is writing in the language and imagery of their cultural context. The implications are much more important than the style of writing. Both religions extol the name of their God???!!! That's it. I'm convinced. We Jews MUST have borrowed from Egypt because we both extol the name of our God. ^^ Absurd ^^ Both religions have prophecies about future rulers of the land? Amazing! That can ONLY occur if the prophecy was borrowed. Remember when I said this was silly once the two are compared side-by-side? These are the types of similarities that have been brought? Both have prophecies of a future monarch? It's beyond mental gymnastics. It's nonsense with a "PHD" label. Yes, the child-ruler-born-of-god is a common archetype. It's all over the world, in many cultures. It could be borrowed, but, you're no longer talking about the construction of Judaism. We Jews do not believe in a child-ruler-born-of-god. There is no similarity here other than the English word "mandrake". The story in the Torah is not Jacob "ensnared" by his wife's hair or any of her other features. It's obvious. Rational. Anyone can come up with this same idea without borrowing. I'm sure I can find other examples of the golden-rule in other cultures which are geographically distant from Egypt. This shows that the golden-rule can co-exist in two different religions without being borrowed. Yes. It's a common shared human experience: hearing Bird-song. Naturally it will be included in a Psalm or a hymn.... Without needing to borrow it. Pregnancy and child-birth = shared human experience = It will naturally occur in writing of many people without the need to borrow the idea. It's because the authors are human, and share human experiences, even though they have never met and never interacted with each other. This one, assuming the translation is correct, is a pretty good similarity. But we would need to read both entire passages and compare them. Whomever produced this list, did not filter out the false-positives and ridiculous comparison, so, this one will need to be double checked. Both religions advise to listen to their wise teachers and teachings? It MUST be borrowed! ^^ Sarcasm ^^ The Egyptian religion invented these ideas and Judaism copied them? No. It's common sense. No borrowing needed. It's common sense. No borrowing needed. It's common sense. No borrowing needed. It's common sense. No borrowing needed.

This is a mistranslation. In Genesis 1:27 Zachar and N'keivah were created. These words are often and most correctly translated as masculine and feminine. Judaism is a religion which asserts that creation is a product of sympathetic yet oppositional pairings. God, in Judaism, and as written in the Torah is the one which separates these pairings and blesses them. Is that Egyptian?

And yet, when the two are put side by side, the differences are almost always ignored and omitted. This is why people get the wrong impression. Researchers put their fingers on the scale to exaggerate the confidence in their theories. This is a great example of omitting information to exaggerate. What you posted is not Psalm 104 and it's the hymn of Aten. It's abridged. The cropped out a great deal of both the Psalm and the hymn to make it look like a closer match. The hymn to Aten is much-much longer than 9 verses. Psalm 104 is almost 40 verses. Clearly there is a lot which is being omitted. Maybe I'll spend some time collecting a proper and complete version of both so they can actually be compared side-by-side. What you posted is grossly incomplete.

I didn't see that post. I'll look for it. Falsifiable evidence means that the experiment is designed to include a test to evaluate if the hypothesis is false. To produce falsifiable evidence that a toothbrush is cursed one would need to develop and execute a test to see if the tooth-brush is NOT cursed. If there is evidence which is opposing this test, the contra-positive, ( "the evidence shows it's not not-cursed" ) then there is falsifiable evidence supporting the theory. It's counter-intuitive. The best experiments include both straight-forward intuitive tests, and counter-intuitive falsifiable tests. Did @Nuralhamal's story include this? I have never seen falsifiable evidence of Magic. It is all in the form of, forgive me, not intending to insult, an argument from ignorance. Argument's from ignorance can always be reduced, simplified, and phrased as an unanswerable question: "Well? What else could it be?" On examination of the circumstances of each "magical" event, there is always another mundane explanation for the phenomena which is, at least, equally plausible. Because of this, there is never falsifiable evidence. There is never evidence "It's not mundane". In order to be falsifiable, there needs to be evidence of that. Evidence that "it's not mundane" which is very difficult to rigorously obtain. It's much more difficult than obtaining evidence of a magical event. The example you gave for the color green is a good one. The color green is a specific wavelength of electromagnetic radiation, but, the label is arbitrary, and the evaluation of what is and what is not "green" is subjective. "Green" occurs in the mind. Many who practice magic also consider it an internal practice of the mind-and-heart. The "magic" is there. In the individual. No. it cannot be falsified. You are correct. However, the comments which I replied to were asserting that a ritual object, a wand, a bowl, has some intrinsic magical quality which a "real magician" can recognize. An assertion was made that this "magic" can be proven and there is no faith involved at all. Proven. It's simply not true. It's exaggerating. Wishful thinking. In order to prove it, it's needed to show that there is not an equally plausible mundane explanation. In order to prove it, there would need to be consistent measurable results. Consistent. One success or two successes does not prove anything. There would need to be multiple trials to confirm it. No. Why do you think so? Faith implies that there is more happening and influencing the phenomena beyond the individual's perception. It's agnostic. I am replying to a rigid-gnostic point of view: "I am certain. I know ( gnostic ) how magic works. I know ( gnostic ) it can be proven." ^^ it's irrational / border-line delusional ^^ Gnostics claim superiority over religious people of faith. In this case, the grandiose behavior is ... Flamboyant, obvious. I'm simply showing that the excessive certainty is faith, and, the gnostic-magician is fooling themself.