Optional parental preparation:

1. Contradictory Datings — Ta•na"khꞋ presents a set of enigmatic, seemingly-unresolvable chronological contradictions. For example, Ta•na"khꞋ in one place (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 15.13-14) explicitly specifies that Israel would sojourn as geir•imꞋ in Egypt for 400-years while, in a different passage (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 15.16) Israel would be redeemed from Egypt in only the 4^th generation, ≈80 years! Faced with these kinds of enigmas, Arts-degreed archeologists have dated the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ as late as the B.C.E. 13^th century, based on unscientific methodologies and often flimsy evidence. Later, scholars pushed the dating a couple of centuries earlier to the B.C.E. 15^th century, in conjunction with the Santorini eruption they estimated to mid- B.C.E. 15^th century. Holding to the conjunction of the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ with the Santorini eruption, scientists in 2016 C.E. ¹⁴C date the Santorini eruption to c. B.C.E. , pushing the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ almost another 2 centuries earlier. It's no wonder archeologists have never found evidence from the B.C.E. 13^th century of the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ. There was no Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ in the B.C.E. 13^th, or B.C.E. 15^th centuries! Start looking c. B.C.E. !

   These shifts in chronology of the Ta•na"khꞋ are the result of most everything in the text of Ta•na"khꞋ being chronologically anchored only internally among events described within, with few absolute external anchor dates. Thus, like previous datings, the entire series of Biblical events simply all slide along the historical chronological sequence intact – yet again – another nearly 2 centuries earlier. (See my Chronology Of The Tanakh, From The "Big נְטִיָּה" Live-Link^T .)

   This narrows the gap from 4 centuries to about 5 years! Ta•na"khꞋ documents that Mosh•ëhꞋ was 80 years old when he and A•ha•ronꞋ spoke to Par•ohꞋ (Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 7.7). According to latest scholarship, Ah-kheper ka-Ra Tut-moses Sr. began his reign as Par•ohꞋ c. B.C.E. 1701, requiring that Mosh•ëhꞋ was born soon thereafter. If Mosh•ëhꞋ was born, say, the next year, in c. B.C.E. 1700, then he would have been 80 years old c. B.C.E. 1620, only 5 years after the best ¹⁴C datings to date of the Santorini eruption – narrowing the previous gaps of 4 centuries to about 5 years. Reduced to this smaller and more manageable gap, errors can be any accumulation of combinations of Pharaonic, archeological and even ¹⁴C datings; whether the later Pharaohs were reigning some 5 years earlier or the ¹⁴C dating is an understandable 5 years later or some combination. At this point, however, scholars do not know whether the Santorini might be 5 years or more later (or earlier, for that matter), and should be far less sure about the datings of the Egyptian Pharaohs. So the datings I use seem to be about the best scholarly educated guess one can make at this time. It is certainly enough to get readers (and arts-degreed archeologists), for the first time ever, out of the wrong – mythological legends – ballpark and into the right – scientific/scholarly, reality, historical, authentic – ballpark. This, not being absolutely right exactly (which still remains slightly beyond reach), is the goal of not only these Bible stories, but all of the rest of my books, the website (www.netzarim.co.il) and works as well. 

2. Sho•phᵊt•imꞋ 1.16 describes Yi•tᵊr•ōꞋ Rᵊu•eilꞋ as a member of the tribe descended directly from קַיִן‎ (QayꞋin, Hellenized to "Cain"), who were later absorbed into sheivꞋët YᵊhudꞋâh.

   The Mi•dᵊyân•imꞋ were primarily concentrated in what, today, is southwestern Jordan, southeast of contemporary Israel's southern NëgꞋëv (not further south in Saudi Arabia as Muslims and other miso-Judaics disinform).

   The identification of the Mi•dᵊyân•imꞋ with the Yi•shᵊm•â•eil•imꞋ merchant trader caravans (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 37.28; Sho•phᵊt•imꞋ 8.24) suggests that these Arab clans were the ancient equivalent of today's interstate & international truckers, railways and air transport – with widespread colonies dispersed throughout the region. 

3. This interpretation of the passage is not asserted to be "the" only correct interpretation; but, rather, to demonstrate that rational interpretations in harmony with science and the real world exist, freeing the believer from the mentally unhealthy dependence on Dark Ages supernatural mysticism. It would also be scientifically valid to interpret these passages to be visions of Mosh•ëhꞋ.

   Prior to the destruction of the yo•khas•inꞋ by the Romans, Lᵊwi•yimꞋ / ko•han•imꞋ were, by definition, explicitly ma•lâkh•eiꞋ ël•oh•imꞋ or ma•lâkh•eiꞋ י‑‑ה. One may question whether a person is a legitimate spokesperson of, and speaking for, י‑‑ה; but it's axiomatic that a human being who legitimately speaks in the Name of י‑‑ה speaks the Words of י‑‑ה: i.e., י‑‑ה speaking, the Presence (Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ) of י‑‑ה! Consequently, it is (or, at least, was – before the advent of "angels"), in such a case, proper to cite such mortal human ma•lâkh•imꞋ as, "י‑‑ה said…" or "י‑‑ה met…," etc.

   While the rabbis have always superficially (and superstitiously) interpreted this as a supernatural event, the literal reading unavoidably poses an anthropomorphism that is prohibited by Tor•âhꞋ, and would, therefore, instantiate a contradiction; an inescapable and impossible conundrum!

   For those of us who are intelligent and educated enough to reject the silliness that superstitious supernatural nonsense could from the Creator of the universe (Who cannot contradict His own Laws – which govern the universe, not to mention prohibit anthropomorphism), it's conspicuous that [1] Mosh•ëhꞋ was discussing these matters with a human representing י‑‑ה — a ko•heinꞋ, and [2] this ko•heinꞋ knew Mosh•ëhꞋ personally, including Mosh•ëhꞋ's Egyptian qualifications.

   Interpreting the text beginning 3.2 as a scientifically-viable, real-world, natural and physical encounter with a ma•lâkhꞋ י‑‑ה, only 3 ma•lâkh•eiꞋ ël•oh•imꞋ have been introduced within the context. Including Mosh•ëhꞋ himself, both of the other two knew and would recognize Mosh•ëhꞋ to chase him down and call him by name: the Mi•dᵊyân•iꞋ, Yi•tᵊr•ōꞋ (i.e., a ko•heinꞋ) Rᵊu•eilꞋ and Mosh•ëhꞋ's birth brother, A•ha•ronꞋ.

   Being a ko•heinꞋ of Mi•dᵊyânꞋ, Yi•tᵊr•ōꞋ (i.e., a ko•heinꞋ) Rᵊu•eilꞋ would also certainly have frequented both the Mi•dᵊyân•imꞋ shrine beside their copper mines at Timna, in today's Israeli NëgꞋëv (where they made his scepters), and the sacred Har Sin•aiꞋ – where this meeting took place. And who, but a ko•heinꞋ of Mi•dᵊyânꞋ would know a priestly magical illusion that was such a closely guarded Mi•dᵊyânm•iꞋ priestly secret that even the ko•han•imꞋ of the world's super-power for the past 1,000 years, Egypt, didnt know it until they saw A•ha•ronꞋ do it?

   At the end of the passage (4.18), Mosh•ëhꞋ seems to leave the presence of the ma•lâkhꞋ י‑‑ה and return to Yi•tᵊr•ōꞋ (i.e., a ko•heinꞋ) Rᵊu•eilꞋ in Mi•dᵊyânꞋ. While this seems to preclude Rᵊu•eilꞋ as the the ma•lâkhꞋ י‑‑ה in the preceding verses, it turns out that, in the SeiphꞋër Tor•âhꞋ Tei•mân•iꞋ, there is a break indicating that 4.18 begins a new passage, and a new episode, which cannot be assumed to continue from the previous passage or episode. Indeed, while a superficial read of 4.18 might suggest that Mosh•ëhꞋ left the ma•lâkhꞋ י‑‑ה in 4.17 to return to Rᵊu•eilꞋ in Mi•dᵊyânꞋ in 4.18 (precluding Rᵊu•eilꞋ, being the ma•lâkhꞋ י‑‑ה, the previous episode ends with 4.17.

   Thus, "Then he walked," in 4.18, begins a new "walk" (livestock grazing excursion) unconnected from the previous episode. It is after this different grazing excursion that "he again returns to Rᵊu•eilꞋ in Mi•dᵊyânꞋ.

   In 4.28, we discover that the ma•lâkhꞋ י‑‑ה who earlier taught Mosh•ëhꞋ the illusions – and, therefore, could not be one and the same as Mosh•ëhꞋ – was not his brother A•ha•ronꞋ.

   In 4.25, we discover that י‑‑ה (in v 24), is the groom of Tzi•pōr•âhꞋ – Mosh•ëhꞋ.

   A priori, it isn't the same ma•lâkhꞋ in each passage. There is not simply one and only one ma•lâkhꞋ addressed as י‑‑ה throughout all of these passages. The identity of who is the ma•lâkhꞋ must be discerned for each passage according to its own context. 

4. This hints that, living in Egyptian idolatry with its myriad of deities, the first question to pop up would be: "Which god? What name?" Even so long after Avᵊrâ•hâmꞋ, peoples throughout the ancient Middle East argued over which god was the mightiest, original or Creator-Singularity — and they continue to do so today. Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ, having rejected and emigrated from their Mesopotamian (modern Iraqi) origins, struggled for new words, within their Egyptian and Canaanite worlds, to describe their innovative concept of an Invisible, Spiritual (i.e., non-dimensional) Singularity Creator. How Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ compares and contrasts with local gods of Kᵊna•anꞋ and Egypt depends upon when this confrontation occurred; and there is a wide divergence of academic opinions, up to 2 centuries in some cases, concerning the dating of the Yᵊtzi•âhꞋ (which determines when Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ emerged into Kᵊna•anꞋ – and which deities may, therefore, be chronologically attributed to whom).

   Pre-¹⁴C dating by sherds and handwavium-dating asserted the period of the emergence of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ in Kᵊna•anꞋ to have begun in the B.C.E. 13^th century. However, ¹⁴C dating of the Santorini eruption shortly before, ever-widely being accepted as the trigger, fixes this event to be c B.C.E. — correcting the emergence of Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ into Kᵊna•anꞋ about 3 centuries earlier. This means that the deity-scape in the arts-degreed, pre-¹⁴C dating, mistakenly assumes a pristine Kᵊna•anꞋ deity-scape around 3 centuries after Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ emerged in Kᵊna•anꞋ and obviously dramatically had changed the deity-scape. Ergo, the B.C.E. 13^th century gods, which included instances of the Name י‑‑ה, that they insist (based on flawed dating) were of Kᵊna•an•iꞋ origin, were, in fact, the result of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ's emergence, some 3 centuries earlier, in Kᵊna•anꞋ.

   Far more importantly and tellingly, conversely, the sea-change in the deity-scape that occurred at the end of the Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron Age turn out to be the direct effect, and still more corroborating evidence, of the emergence of Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ in Kᵊna•anꞋ!!! This contradicts assertions that the Kᵊna•an•imꞋ first knew י‑‑ה and introduced י‑‑ה to Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ – and falsely fueling today's "originally Palestinian" dispute.

   ¹⁴C dating demonstrates the opposite: י‑‑ה is first recorded with the emergence of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ in Kᵊna•anꞋ in the early years of the B.C.E. 16^th century. More likely, it was around this time that the Name heralded by Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ became known to scattered peoples who, as they were accustomed to do with newly discovered deities, subsequently integrated the Name into their pantheon.

   Hieroglyph Yah: read deity first, then as the ree faces: crescent moon (deity), then ltr: reed (y) arm (a) wick (h)

   Prior to their domination of Kᵊna•anꞋ, however, their many years of sojourn in Egypt exposed them to the Egyptian moon calendar and its Egyptian god, Yah (later assimilated into Ō•sirꞋis) – and sometimes confused with, lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdilꞋ, י‑‑ה, likely in part due to the use also by Bᵊn•eiꞋ-Yi•sᵊrâ•eilꞋ of the lunar calendar.

   For Yi•sᵊr•â• eilꞋ, whose name is based on Eil, י‑‑ה superseded, and became, ha-ël•oh•imꞋ, all of the deities and is explicitly stated as such in the Shᵊm•aꞋ.

   The original derivation of the Name, י‑‑ה, is introduced in this verse: אֶהְיֶה.

   The phrase "אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה" implies that "I shall be whatever I shall be(come)" – the connotations of the Name must evolve. It's then obvious that this must occur as humankind advances knowledge about our Creator-Singularity as reflected in His Laws governing the operation of His Creation. That intention is reflected in the evolution of the fu. 1^st pers. sing. form, אֶהְיֶה, into a portmanteau hybrid of two forms of הָיָה (hâ•yâhꞋ; he was – the verb "to be"): a prefix consisting of the contracted fu. 3^rd pers, masc. sing. form (-יְהִי, yᵊhiy-…, he shall be[come]…), replacing the suffix (הִי, hiy) with the pres. fem. sing. הׂוָה (hō•wâhꞋ; she is…). Thus, this portmanteau hybrid Name, י‑‑ה, subsumes time (pres. & fu.) and gender (m. & f.). To eliminate ambiguity, the Name is then explicitly declared in the subsequent verse (15). 

5. The ancient Egyptians worshiped the Egyptian Cobra or Asp (Naja haje) and the uraeus represented the "fiery eye of Ra", so it was used as a symbol on the crown of the pharaohs. One can then imagine the stunning fear of a scepter that issued cobras.

   The preferred habitat of the Egyptian cobra (Naja haje) includes abandoned animal burrows and rock outcroppings. The adult Egyptian cobra usually grows to a maximum of 3 to 7 feet and can weigh up to 20 pounds. Egyptian cobras are considered one of the most venomous snakes in Africa, even kill an adult elephant in 3 hours. The Egyptian cobra feeds on eggs, chicks, lizards, birds, small mammals, toads and even on other snakes including other venomous species such as the puff adder (Bitis arietans).

   Symbolizing the eye of Ra, an Egyptian Cobra issuing from Mosh•ëhꞋ's staff, particularly devouring the snakes of the Egyptian priests' magic, would have conveyed supernatural religious meaning and dire nationalist implications of doom for Egyptians.

   The text clearly assumes that, in the time of Mosh•ëhꞋ, this was an already-ancient and well-guarded priestly magic to load an Egyptian-style שְׂכֶם scepter. The ceremonial heqa scepter had evolved to become too short to accommodate an adult Egyptian cobra. However, the heqa could accommodate the venomous Desert Horned Viper (Cerastes cerastes), which averages 30–60 cm (12–24 in).

   Being hollow metal, one could bait such scepters with a small piece of meat at the bottom end, which is plugged. Then a heqa scepter could be opened at the top end and placed near the habitat of a Desert Horned Viper (Cerastes cerastes), or a שְׂכֶם scepter could be opened at the top end and placed near the habitat of a juvenile (being smaller, fully venomous and more active/​aggressive) Egyptian cobra (Naja haje). These snakes are, by nature, drawn to enter burrows tracking the scent of prey. Once the snake enters, enticed toward the bait, the snake would not be able to turn around to get out. Thus, the snake is trapped within the scepter – a loaded scepter. Since the Egyptian cobra can go a month without feeding, the priest wouldn't feed the cobra for the month preceding a performance so that the cobra is ravenously hungry to prey on whatever it encounters when released. To release the snake, the priest needed only pull a pin or otherwise trigger the release of the plug at the bottom of the scepter, freeing the snake.

   Ancients not privy to how the illusion was performed believed that the "divine scepters" were issuing Horned Vipers and cobras at the command of the priest, whose words were deemed the Voice of the ël•oh•imꞋ. Yet, the ma•lâkhꞋ י‑‑ה taught Mosh•ëhꞋ (who later taught A•ha•ronꞋ; 4.28), once the cobra had been released, the scepter was no longer "loaded" and could be safely picked up and handled.

   Egyptian cobras are known to eat Desert Horned Vipers in their diet. Ergo, it seems clear that A•ha•ronꞋ first utilized his heqa scepter to issue a Horned Desert Viper, keeping his "big gun" – the שְׂכֶם scepter – in reserve. He and Mosh•ëhꞋ walked to the next meeting with his שְׂכֶם scepter loaded with an Egyptian cobra. When the Egyptian priests reproduced his trick releasing a Desert Horned Viper, the rest is history. 

Questions you might anticipate that your child might raise and be prepared to discuss:

1. What is an excursion?

2. What does impious mean?

3. What is a tax? A protest? (Boston Tea Party?)

4. What was a city-state?

5. What is suppression?

6. What does expedite mean?

7. What does expel mean?

8. What is sarcasm?

9. What is a sign?

10. What does challenge mean?

11. Who are elders?

12. What is a mnemonic?

13. What is a natural wonder?

14. What is an illusion?

15. What does adjudicate mean?