What is the historical core behind the Exodus?

Which description would that be? As depicted in the movie The Ten Commandments?

If gathering stubble in the field provided all the straw needed that wouldn’t indicate massive quantities of straw was needed.

1 Like

It isn’t clear that they were theoretically monotheistic in that earlier period, as I pointed out. The history appears to be viewed by the author from the perspective of hindsight, and kings and the people judged by a standard that was not available to them in their own time.


The labour in making mud would be 100 times more than gathering straw. So why would the bible highlight the starw? There are 2 ways to solve it. 1. We ignore the archaeological evidence of less straw. 2. We look for another location where more straw was needed to make burnt bricks.

1 Like

Where would you draw this in the narratives of abraham to moses?

Where do you get this from? Given a source of water, the Nile, and clay, the banks of the Nile, making mud should be child’s play. My guess would be the greatest labor would be in forming and setting out the bricks to dry.

It increased their labor? Not something slaves would exactly rejoice over.

If there is archaeological evidence of less straw in the mud bricks of Egypt isn’t this proof the Bible is correct in it’s references to Egypt?

Do you have a Bible reference to burnt bricks?

Have u seen burnt bricks made? They use awful amounts of straw. The clay still involves much labour. So no chsnce of conflict over straw in making mud bricks of egypt.

No. Less straw means that conflict cannot be on straw. Yet bible is correct. Only we are looking at the wrong place.

At making of tower of babel it is explicitly .come let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly. So we must assume the hebrews knew making of baking of bricks. We will then need to show why they did NOT bake bricks.

@beaglelady your question is welcome.
@Terry_Sampson here’s a doodle I made. I don’t call this art. It’s just me taking what someone says and then doodle.
I’ll say this: I believe we all live forever, the inner ‘I’ we all carry, allow to teach me.

1 Like

Thanks for that. As you know, Sufism is the mystical branch of Islam. The Sufis are ascetics, and seek a direct, personal experience with God.

So you are assuming the Hebrews were in charge of construction then? Not slave labor as stated in the Bible?

You are also assuming that the building of a tower that was supposed to reach God would be the same as building single story buildings. Pretty sure the construction techniques would be different.

Again the point of denying the Hebrews straw was simply to increase their labor. Pretty clear from reading the text.

Perhaps because their task masters did not tell them to bake the bricks?

Anybody tell me what this has to do with God in Christ?

1 Like

Not at all. But such trchnical knowledge cannot be hidden like the patents. Whether hebrews or mitsrayims both had knowledge of baking bricks. The bible only says the pharaoh increased the quota of straw. That is like the federal government cutting wages. Not slavery.

Not at all. But whether 1 story or 7, the burnt brick houses are more efficient over their lifetime. So why woukd mitsrayims make fickle houses with mud brivks if they knew how to bake briks?

Then explain


Mud bricks worked for the Egyptians.

And I am still trying to figure out the point you are making about the straw. My guess is you have examples of baked bricks in India and therefore magically that means the Hebrews came from India.

BJ: The bible only says the pharaoh increased the quota of straw. That is like the federal government cutting wages. Not slavery.

Bill: and they made their lives bitter with hard labor in mortar and bricks and at all kinds of labor in the field, all their labors which they violently had them perform as slaves.

BJ: The word “slaves” in not there in the Hebrew text. Rest is compatible with a reduction of wages. Perhaps something like Dicken’s England.

BJ: So why woukd mitsrayims make fickle houses with mud brivks if they knew how to bake briks?

Bill: Mud bricks worked for the Egyptians. Construction of walls and vaults in mud-brick was economical and relatively technically uncomplicated, and mud-brick architecture provided a more comfortable and more adaptable living and working environment when compared to stone buildings.

BJ: Then modern Egypt should be living in mud bricks. The life of mud bricks is relatively short compared to baked brinks. The additional x2 investment in baking may get a x20 increase in life. Thus, while it is true that Egypt made mud bricks, it only shows they did not have the technology of making baked bricks. And, since they did not make baked bricks, they would hardly have a conflict on straw that would constitute only about 1% of the input. This means that either the Bible is incorrect or the narrative is located in an area where burnt bricks were the norm.

Bill: And I am still trying to figure out the point you are making about the straw. My guess is you have examples of baked bricks in India and therefore magically that means the Hebrews came from India.

BJ: You are right. Mere bricks do not mean that Hebrews came form India. I give very briefly how some of the major problems of geography of the pre-Exodus Biblical narrative and how they are resolved in the Exodus from the Indus Valley.

1] Four rivers not known in West Asia. Indus: We have 4 rivers emerging from Pushkar in India. This place is believed to be the seat of creation in the Hindu beliefs.

2] No Flood of 150 days in West Asia. Waters of Mesopotamia drain out soon. Indus: The city of Jalore (“city of water”) is located in a bowl-like geological structure where rain water stays put.

3] No tower. Ziggurats are not towers since width > height. Indus: Temple towers of Anuppur.

4] No land between two rivers that was bequeathed to Abraham. Indus: The two rivers Ghaggar and Yamuna enclose a fertile area.

5] No natural equivalent of the separation of waters of Yam Suf 1. Bitter Lakes would not be crossable in winds of 100 mph+, and they are located ON the short route to Israel. Indus: A mud volcano may have arrested the waters of Indus River and allowed the Hebrews to cross on land.

6] There is no suggestion for the location of Yam Suf 2 (Gen. 33:10). Indus: Hamun-e-Mashkel lies dot on the route.

7] No volcano in Sinai. Indus: Taftan. It is a live volcano emitting sulfuric fumes even today.

8] Yam Suf 3 is supposed to be Gulf of Aqaba. But no reason is forthcoming as to why Hebrews would go south to Aqaba. Indus: Shatt al-Arab.

1 Like

Why are you making me study Southern England?
You wrote, “Perhaps something like Dicken’s England.”
I had never heard of this place.

How come you didn’t use other ideas that are in the land of India, Iran, and Yisrael areas to help explain wages in the Indus Valley? There is no need to study in southern England if we continue to study in these locations.

How did Pharaoh come to control the currency? What about Moses? He was adopted by the daughter of Pharaoh, so why couldn’t Moses control currency in India and control wages too? Because you claim Pharaoh ruled, so no Hebrews had any say in the exchange of currency for wages. The Yadavas were kings, right? Now I’m getting confused., King of Mitsrayim., Pharaoh isn’t a king. Was the Indus Valley an exchange of currency for all that determined wages or dictation control currency that Pharaoh demanded as wages? As we know, all Hebrews were not slaves, but were fighters, farmers, and Yadavas Hebrews practiced the profession of cattle rearing, on their own land. Who owns the land? Why was Pharaoh afraid of the Hebrews? How come the Philistines were so dangerous? It seemed no one got along, as everyone knew that humans came from the Indus Valley.

I might well ask what was happening in southern England during the pre-exodus and during the exodus due to your including southern England. Wait, no humans yet in southern England, as we all came from India and branched outward, so no one yet in southern England, right? Yet you use southern England wages as an example of what era, and I don’t know any of this, yet you assume.

OK, enough of editing. I probably could have deleted more words.

Krishna didn’t go up this volcano, so how come Moses did? Were there any laws given to Krishna?

Krishna is a Hindu god. Why would God give him any laws? And why would he accept them?

Krishna is not God. He is “avatara” or “descended” and I understand him to be parallel to the Abrahamic prophets. The Hindu narrative ends after Krishna left Indus Valley. So God did not give any laws to Krishna but he gave to Moses. Perhaps God gave laws to Krishna-Moses after he left the Indus Valley. Thus recorded in the Bible but not in the Hindu texts.