Presently, there are countless alternatives when choosing kitchen countertops. Amongst all these countertop materials, corian vs granite tops the chart of varieties of countertops because a lot of house owners usually select between the two.
In this write-up, 8 differences between the two countertop materials would be elucidated. On top of that, one of the most excellent corian suppliers would be recommended.

Corian vs Granite: Different Material Composition

Corian and Granite are made up of different materials. Granite is a naturally occurring material, while Corian is made up of various materials, binding resins, dyes, and other fillers.
Pure natural stone, such as granite or marble, is a natural material that is mined from the earth and cut into slabs. It is characterized by its unique veining and color patterns, high durability, and resistance to heat and scratches. However, natural stone is porous and requires sealing to prevent stains and damage from moisture.
On the other hand, Corian is not composed of naturally occurring material. It is composed of various materials and fillers that give texture and color. Notably, Corian being more artificial doesn’t mean it lacks durability or strength when used.
https://preview.redd.it/b3iz2so3oo5d1.png?width=612&format=png&auto=webp&s=4e9629e446f01d6ede07e79a9bc446c658a92f9f

Corian vs. Granite Countertops: Differences in Appearance

In terms of appearance, Corian appears more attractive than granite. Therefore, as a house owner who relishes aesthetic kitchen designs, Corian is the best when it comes to attractiveness. This is because corian countertops are made with different materials that bring about finer color and texture. Corian can be integrated with glass, stone, and wood and gives off a variety of colors from the materials used.
On the other hand, granite is not composed of different materials, so it is usually just natural granite and whatever color it comes with. On the contrary, granite doesn’t have color, texture, or pattern options when compared to Corian. Someone who loves attractive colors and patterns might pick Corian over granite.
In addition, Since artificial stone is artificially manufactured, it is easy to create specially designed shapes in the production process, but it is very difficult to change the shape of granite.

Solid Surface vs Granite: Different Installation

The installation technique of solid surface vs granite differs and one seems to be a lot easier than the other. Corian countertops are light so it is very easy to install in any kitchen or other countertop-needed room. In line with this, it can be installed with no visible seams by using seaming materials that match the product perfectly.
On the contrary, it is advisable to leave the installation of granite countertops to professionals. It is heavy and complicated to install and even professionals have a tough time making seams well-shaped, even and matched. Trying to install granite countertops is tasking and any slight mistake while cutting results in wastage.

The Durability of Corian and Granite

In terms of durability, corian vs granite countertops are both durable, but in different ways. For instance, granite countertops are resistant to scratching and heat. However, it is naturally porous. It can absorb spills which can cause permanent damage.
Corian on the other hand is non-porous and can be manufactured to achieve a seamless look. When acidic substances stain granite countertops, they might need to be resealed between 7-12 months while Corian countertops do not need resealing at any point.
Correspondingly, Corian countertops need proper management while using them. It can be scratched when the user slices things on it. So, it is advisable to use chopping boards to maintain it accurately. Granite countertops on the other hand don’t need such management because it is highly resistant to scratching.

Health Effects of Corian and Granite

Before choosing between Corian and granite, it is imperative to evaluate the health effects. Granite countertops can harbor bacteria over a long period while Corian does not harbor bacteria.
It is better to choose countertops that don’t harbor bacteria in the kitchen. For instance, KKR is one of the best Corian manufacturing brands and the Corian products are odorless, renewable, and non-toxic. They are also suitable for bathroom uses and are super healthy, easy to install, and easy to clean solid surface countertops.

Different Maintenance Requirements Between Corian and Granite

The means of maintaining corian countertops vs granite are quite different. Granite countertops are made from natural granites which makes them less flexible when it comes to its maintenance. Corian countertops on the other hand are versatile with their maintenance and much more flexible.
Corian can be wiped and sanitized with soap and water, alcohol, bleach, and even ammonia without any damage or retardness in appearance. On the contrary, bleach, vinegar, or ammonia should never be used to clean granite countertops. It reacts to these substances and begins to get dull or fade. In essence, Corian countertops are easier to maintain and keep clean and sparkling.

Corian vs Granite: Different Heat Resistance

Granite countertops are known to be highly invulnerable to heat. No matter the hotness of anything placed on it, it doesn’t react to it or cause any damage. On the other hand, Corian is not as resistant to heat as granite. Thus, it is advisable to check the temperature of anything placed on it because it can lead to discoloration or other damage.
For Corian, it is advisable to use hot pads before dropping hot pots on them. Anything above 325° Fahrenheit can destroy the corian. Granite is better when it comes to heat resistance but corian also has countless benefits.

Applications of Corian and Granite

Corian vs granite countertops are not applied completely the same way, although, there might be some similarities. The following are the applications of corian and granite:

Corian

Corian can be used for various applications. For example, Corian is used to make kitchen and bathroom countertops and sinks. It is suitable for use in hotels, restaurants, hospitals, and residences.
When used, it is easy to clean and maintain, and proper care and maintenance combats bacteria. It is more attractive and has different patterns which make it a top choice for tabletops, bar counters, restaurant counters, and solid counters in a hospital. The following are applications of Corian:

• Kitchen Countertops
• Bathroom Sink
• Home Decor and Artwork
• Furniture
• Wall Cladding

Granite

Granite is more durable and heat resistant and this makes it a perfect option for classic kitchen countertops. In offices, granite flooring is used and it fits this application due to its strength and quality. Granite might be less attractive but it is used in modern fashionable kitchens as well as industrial kitchens. The following are applications of granite:

• Kitchen and Bathroom Countertops
• Monuments
• Healthcare or Hospital Countertops
• Floor Decoration

KKR, One of the Most Excellent Corian Suppliers in China

When skimming for one of the best Corian suppliers, KKR – Kingkonree is the brand to settle for. The company manufactures and supplies the best Corian countertops in the market.

KKR’s Products Throughout Over 107 Countries

KKR produces solid surface countertops, bathtubs, and wash basins. The products of KKR passed CE and SGS tests and satisfied numerous clients in the hotel industry. The company has already bagged GMC, ISO, and CUPC certifications which shows the company’s standards and affirms its reliability.

Various Size and Shape Can be Customised

Corian materials supplied by KKR come in various sizes and shapes and they can be customized to carry brand names and so on. Is Corian cheaper than granite? KKR gives the most pocket-friendly price for the customization of solid surface products. The Corian products are seamlessly constructed, durable, machinable, and easy to repair.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, choosing between corian vs granite is not a herculean task. House owners only need to select the one deemed fit to work perfectly for what it is needed for. The differences between the two have been explored and highlighted, various means of application have been illustrated, and a trustworthy corian manufacturer and supplier have been recommended. Hence, buyers can visit the official KKR website and get a quote instantly.

Before we begin, let me say I love the Jewish people and Christians, and I consider all of them my brothers and sisters, as I do all people from all religions and walks of life. We are all God's beloved children.
I thoroughly cherish the ancient wisdom contained in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, and in the sacred books of other faiths as well.
Yet over the course of several decades, I discovered numerous inaccurate teachings which I would like to review. It may not be what most people consider a "conspiracy". Nevertheless, these misconceptions must be revealed for the truth to be known.
Egyptian origins
Judaism - the Jewish religion - originated in ancient Egypt. A mixed group of people from multiple nationalities, including Egyptian, were expelled from Egypt, taking Egyptian beliefs and practices with them, including Egyptian temple designs.
This theory has been around for nearly a hundred years. Sigmund Freud, the famous Austrian neurologist and founder of psychoanalysis who lived from 1856 to 1939, wrote about Judaism's link to ancient Egypt in 1939, the final year of his life.
From Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten :
"One of the first to mention this [theory] was Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, in his book Moses and Monotheism.[235] Basing his arguments on his belief that the Exodus story was historical, Freud argued that Moses had been an Atenist priest who was forced to leave Egypt with his followers after Akhenaten's death. Freud argued that Akhenaten was striving to promote monotheism, something that the biblical Moses was able to achieve.[235] Following the publication of his book, the concept entered popular consciousness and serious research.[240][241]"
In this post, I will provide my own arguments supporting Freud's proposition.
I started thinking about the link between ancient Israel and ancient Egypt many years ago during my Bible studies. I was also fascinated with the histories of ancient Egypt, Sumer, Babylon, and others.
Over the years, I began noticing some very significant overlapping beliefs that cannot be dismissed. Some of these points are already known and hotly debated; others are my own observations.
I will be brief, however. This topic is absolutely huge in scope - covering history, archeology and religion. If I were to cover the topic to its fullest extent, it would be a book. I will spare you that torture and simply give you the abridged version.
My purpose? I put this out there for debate and further research.
The exodus out of Egypt
In the late 1300's BC, a large group migrated out of Egypt in what is known as "the exodus".
The exodus out of Egypt
Who were the people who left Egypt in the exodus?
The Bible claims they were almost all Israelites who were living in misery in Egypt. But there is good reason to believe the majority were actually Egyptians, as I explain later.
Black box - where the exodus settled
The group who left Egypt eventually settled between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, forming the nation of Israel.
Three major similarities
Several similarities exist between ancient Israel's religion and ancient Egypt's religion. These similarities are so striking, I propose the Jewish religion actually originated in Egypt, and was brought out of Egypt in the exodus.
• 1) Let's start with the most glaring similarity... the temples.
Ancient Egyptian temple
Key features of the ancient Egyptian temple:
a) outer courtyard, b) two large pillars at front entrance, c) a grand hall, d) an inner shrine with statue.
Left - Moses' tabernacle / Right - Solomon's temple
Key features of Moses' tabernacle and Solomon's temple:
a) outer courtyard, b) two large pillars at front entrance, c) first hall called "the Holy Place", d) an inner sanctuary called "the Most Holy Place" where the Ark of the Covenant was housed.
The similarities between ancient Egypt's temples and Judaism's designs are too similar to dismiss. I conclude those who left Egypt in the exodus brought with them Egypt's temple designs.
• 2) Animal sacrifice is another similarity I propose was brought out of Egypt in the exodus.
"...some of the earliest archeological evidence suggesting animal sacrifice comes from Egypt." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice
• 3) Lastly, in agreement with Sigmund Freud noted above, I propose Jewish monotheism (worship of one god) was also brought out of Egypt by the migrants who left in the exodus.
Monotheism from Egypt? Wasn't Egypt polytheistic, worshipping multiple deities?
Not always. Egypt had briefly experimented with the worship of one God who was without form. And this period of monotheism in Egypt lines-up perfectly with the time of the exodus.
Egypt's brief experiment with monotheism
There was a brief period in Egypt's history when monotheism flourished. This was during the reign of Akhenaten, around the middle 1300's BC.
Prior to this, Egypt had always practiced polytheism. But Akhenaten reformed Egyptian religion, focusing on one god instead - "Aten" - who was elevated to supreme god, and "the sole god of the Egyptian state religion". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aten
There is much debate over exactly how monotheism was practiced during that time. As Wikipedia explains - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten :
"The views of Egyptologists differ as to whether the religious policy was absolutely monotheistic, or whether it was monolatristic, syncretistic, or henotheistic.[14][15] This culture shift away from traditional religion was reversed after his death."
For this post, it does not matter how narrow or how broad Akhenaten's monotheism really was. What matters in this discussion is that Akhenaten's reign was an interruption in Egypt's religious system. Akhenaten reformed Egyptian religion, which did not sit well with the traditional priestly class.
After Akhenaten died, Egypt returned to its previous religious system. Akhenaten was vilified, his images chiselled and defaced. Wikipedia adds:
"They discredited Akhenaten and his immediate successors and referred to Akhenaten as "the enemy" or "that criminal" in archival records."
This is why today he is described as "the heretic king", referencing how he was considered after his death.
The exodus was an expulsion
I propose Moses was a high ranking member of Akhenaten's court, perhaps even a prince as the Old Testament describes him. Moses likely took over the leadership of the population of monotheists after Akhenaten died.
As Wikipedia notes (already quoted above) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten :
"Freud argued that Moses had been an Atenist priest [a priest of the god "Aten"] who was forced to leave Egypt with his followers after Akhenaten's death."
I conclude these were the migrants who left Egypt in the exodus. They were Egyptians who practiced monotheism, lead by their high priest, Moses - who was also an Egyptian, and priest of the god "Aten".
The monotheists had become unwelcome in the land of Egypt which had returned to polytheism. Akhenaten's son - the famous King Tut - even changed his name to disassociate himself from his father and the monotheism he had introduced. King Tut's original name was Tutankhaten, which he changed to Tutankhamun after Akhenaten's death.
As Wikipedia explains - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun :
"The cult of the god Amun at Thebes was restored to prominence and the royal couple changed their names to "Tutankhamun" and "Ankhesenamun", removing the -aten suffix."
The suffix at the end of their names indicated whom they worshiped, or the god they were associated with. Akhenaten's suffix was "aten", taken from the god "Aten" whom he associated himself with. Tutankhamun's suffix was "amun", taken from the god "Amun" whom he associated himself with.
King Tut thus changed his name to show he was not connected to Akhenaten or the monotheists who worshipped Aten. Egypt's brief experiment with monotheism was over.
Clearly there was a lot of hatred for that brief experimentation with monotheism. What would the atmosphere have been like for the followers of that monotheistic system after Akhenaten died? I imagine there would have been widespread persecution, or at the very least, discrimination.
I propose this lead to the expulsion of a large mass of people out of Egypt in the exodus. They were the monotheists of Egypt - composed mostly of Egyptians, but likely included foreigners living in Egypt who also practiced the monotheism introduced by Akhenaten.
Moses led this group of fellow monotheists out of an angry Egypt that clearly resented the upheaval Akhenaten had brought to Egyptian life. It must have been a forced expulsion, for they were driven into the desert where they were left to roam and fend for themselves. They would not have chosen to go there on their own.
The dates match
And the dates match. Akhenaten reigned from about 1352 to 1335 BC. Moses lived from about 1391 to 1271 BC. (The Bible writers claim he was 120 years old when he died. Could be true, I suppose.)
According to the Bible's account, Moses was 80 years of age at the time of the exodus, dating it to about 1311 BC. That somewhat fits, putting the exodus some 24 years after Akhenaten's death.
Personally, though, I do not see that it would have taken 24 years to expel a group of monotheists who were no longer welcome, whose founder (Akhenaten) was vilified, defamed, and so vehemently hated. I propose the monotheists were expelled right away, perhaps a year or two after Akhenaten's death.
King Tut - Akhenaten's son noted above - was only 6 years of age when Akhenaten died in 1335 BC, much too young to rule as Pharaoh on his own. It wasn't until 3 years later in 1332 BC when Tut finally ascended to the throne at the age of 9. During this brief interval of 3 years, Egypt's rulership was in contention. There was likely a power struggle. I propose it was during this 3-year period of upheaval when the monotheists were expelled.
Another link placing the exodus at the end of Akhenaten's life is a regional plague which struck Egypt and a large part of the Middle East during the last 5 years of Akhenaten's reign.
As Wikipedia explains - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten :
"Following year twelve [of Akhenaten's 16-year reign], Donald B. Redford and other Egyptologists proposed that Egypt was struck by an epidemic, most likely a plague.[127] Contemporary evidence suggests that a plague ravaged through the Middle East around this time,[128] and ambassadors and delegations arriving to Akhenaten's year twelve reception might have brought the disease to Egypt.[129] Alternatively, letters from the Hattians might suggest that the epidemic originated in Egypt and was carried throughout the Middle East by Egyptian prisoners of war.[130] Regardless of its origin, the epidemic might account for several deaths in the royal family that occurred in the last five years of Akhenaten's reign, including those of his daughters Meketaten, Neferneferure, and Setepenre.[131][132]"
Sound familiar? The Bible's story of the exodus includes a plague which affected all of Egypt, killing even one of Pharaoh's children.
When Moses led the monotheists out of Egypt, he took with him many elements of the monotheistic system that Akhenaten had introduced. I propose this is why Moses' tabernacle looked so similar to Egyptian temples, with even more similarities showing up in Solomon's temple.
Joseph was Imhotep
Yet the Old Testament borrows more from Egypt than just its religious concepts. I propose it also borrows a very famous person... Imhotep.
Multiple similarities exist between Imhotep (a high ranking administrator in ancient Egypt) and the Biblical Joseph (who lived in Egypt before Moses). I propose, as many others do, that the Joseph of the Old Testament was based on Imhotep of ancient Egypt for 3 reasons:
• 1) Let's start with their names...
In "Imhotep", the 1st vowel is "i", the 2nd vowel is "o", the 3rd vowel is "e", followed by a "p".
The name Joseph in Tiberian Hebrew is "Yoseph", and in Aramaic is "Yosep". In both cases, the 1st vowel is "y" (pronounced as short-"i"), the 2nd vowel is "o", the 3rd vowel is "e", followed by a "p" - just as in "Imhotep".
Even the "t" in Imhotep and the "s" in Yosep use similar movements of the tongue.
• 2) Next, their status...
Imhotep occupied a very lofty position in Egyptian court. He was "chancellor to the Pharaoh Djoser, possible architect of Djoser's step pyramid, and high priest of the sun god Ra at Heliopolis". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imhotep
Joseph, for his part, is described in the Bible as having been elevated to the 3rd highest position in Egypt.
• 3) Finally, their great works...
"Imhotep was one of the chief officials of the Pharaoh Djoser. Concurring with much later legends, Egyptologists credit him with the design and construction of the Pyramid of Djoser, a step pyramid at Saqqara built during the 3rd Dynasty. [17] He may also have been responsible for the first known use of stone columns to support a building.[18]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imhotep
Similarly, the Bible describes Joseph as having supervised the construction of numerous large stone granaries in which to store "all the grain of Egypt".
Though granaries and pyramids differ in design, we have to acknowledge the similarity... both men were in charge of building massive stone structures.
Also, to the Israelites living after the exodus, when the Old Testament was written, the pyramids of Egypt likely looked to them like the remains of giant granaries of long ago. Thus, where the ancient Egyptians credited Imhotep with constructing pyramids, the Israelites credited Joseph with constructing the same structures - which they thought were old ruined granaries.
Yet there is one gaping hole in this theory that Joseph was Imhotep... they lived in different time periods. Imhotep lived in the 2600's BC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imhotep), while Joseph lived in the 1800's BC.
Indeed, they lived centuries apart. But let's keep in mind that the writers of the Old Testament did not have such detailed information as archeologists have today. The writers may have placed Joseph in the wrong century, but they were right to place him a few hundred years before the exodus... just as Imhotep also lived centuries before the exodus.
The Old Testament writers were also correct in the phonetics of the name, the occupation, the works, and the elevated position of importance. I propose the Old Testament writers took Imhotep and claimed him as their own as Joseph.
Claiming Egyptians and others as their own
We can see why the writers of the Old Testament wanted to claim Imhotep as their own, as an Israelite.
Between 1550 and 1077 BC (which overlapped the time of the exodus), Imhotep was worshipped as a "demigod" - one of only a handful of non-royals ever to be deified. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imhotep) He was the equivalent of today's superstar. To claim Imhotep as a fellow Israelite gave them a tremendous boost of pride.
They also claimed Moses as their own. As the Old Testament account goes, Moses was born an Israelite, was sent adrift on a river to escape slaughter, was rescued by an Egyptian princess, and was raised as a prince in Egypt's court.
They also claimed Abraham as one of their forefathers, a Mesopotamian who lived in the city of Ur by the lower Euphrates river near the Persian Gulf.
Noah, too, was claimed as an even more distant forefather, when in fact the story of Noah, the ark, and the flood were copied from the ancient Sumerian text "The Epic of Gilgamesh". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh
In The Epic of Gilgamesh, the Sumerian king Uta-napishtim survived a flood by building a large vessel which he filled with animals. As Wikipedia explains - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utnapishtim :
"The story of Uta-napishtim has drawn scholarly comparisons due to the similarities between it and the storylines about Noah in the Bible."
But why did the Israelites claim all of these people as their own?
• The ancient-Sumerian Uta-napishtim (whom they renamed Noah),
• the late-Sumerian Abram of Ur (whom they renamed Abraham),
• the ancient-Egyptian Imhotep (whom they renamed Joseph),
• and the later-Egyptian Moses?
I propose it was to give the Israelites a sense of national identity. They were about to form a new nation.
Forming a new nation after Babylon
In 597 BC, Babylon besieged Jerusalem, taking several thousand Israelites captive to Babylonia. More Israelite captives were taken during the following 10 years. In 587 BC, Jerusalem and its temple were ultimately destroyed. Israel was no longer a nation; its people were captives in Babylon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity
Nearly 50 years later, in 539 BC, Persian king Cyrus the Great and his armies conquered Babylon. As per his tradition, he benevolently released captives.
"Cyrus was particularly renowned among contemporary scholars because of his habitual policy of respecting peoples' customs and religions in the lands that he conquered." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great
The Israelites were about to be freed. We can picture Cyrus' officials gathering the Israelite priests and leaders together, telling them to prepare themselves for their return back to their homeland west of the Jordan River.
After nearly 60 years in captivity, the Israelites needed to organize themselves into a new nation. They needed laws, a history, and a national identity. I propose this is when the first section of the Old Testament - the Torah - was written... in 539 BC in Babylon, just before returning to their ancestral land west of the Jordan River.
The Torah comprises the first 5 books of the Old Testament - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
What makes this significant for the Israelites living in Babylon is that these 5 books cover everything they need in forming a new nation - a national history, a code of laws, a structured religion, and a pact with God for his protection - as explained in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah :
• Of the book of Genesis:
"At God's command ... Abraham journeys from his home [in Mesopotamia] into the ... land of Canaan. ... The narrative is punctuated by a series of covenants with God..."
This book was important, as it paralleled the journey the Israelites were about to make, leaving Babylon (which was Mesopotamia) on their way to the land of Canaan - just like Abraham had done himself some 1,200 years before. Yet they ought not be fearful, for they were the beneficiaries of multiple covenants with God.
• Of the book of Exodus:
"...modern scholarship sees the book as initially a product of the Babylonian exile, 6th century BC..."
In other words, it was initially compiled in Babylon during Israelite captivity.
"Carol Meyers, in her commentary on Exodus, suggests that it is arguably the most important book in the Bible, as it presents the defining features of Israel's identity: memories of a past marked by hardship and escape, a binding covenant with God, ... and the establishment of the life of the community and the guidelines for sustaining it.[31]"
In other words, the book of Exodus gave the Israelites valuable guidelines to forming a new nation.
• Of the book of Leviticus:
"...rules of clean and unclean ... the laws of slaughter and animals permissible to eat ... various moral and ritual laws ... a detailed list of rewards for following God's commandments and a detailed list of punishments for not following them."
In other words, Leviticus instructs the Israelites on matters of worship, cleanliness, and diet. Again, important information for a people about to form a new nation.
• Of the book of Numbers:
"Numbers is the culmination of the story of Israel's exodus from oppression in Egypt and their journey to take possession of the land God promised their fathers."
This parallels their situation at that time, in 539 BC, as they too were about to leave oppression in Babylon on their journey back to take possession of the same land.
• Of the book of Deuteronomy:
"One of its most significant verses is Deuteronomy 6:4 ... which has become the definitive statement of Jewish identity: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one."
In other words, the Israelites leaving Babylon were reminded of their most identifying characteristic... their monotheism.
Borrowing from Babylon
Yet in preparing the first 5 books of the Old Testament - the Torah - the Israelite priests in Babylon borrowed much from Babylon itself.
They borrowed details from Babylonian creation stories, and copied the flood story from the Epic of Gilgamesh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth
They also added a code of laws copied from Babylonian laws, as noted in Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammurabi :
"The Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses in the Torah contain numerous similarities."
Hammurabi was a king of ancient Babylon in the 1700's BC, some 400 years before Moses' time, and 1,200 years before the Israelites resided in Babylon. It wasn't really the Law of Moses, but the Code of Hammurabi - tailored, customized, and re-branded as the Law of Moses when the Torah was written in Babylon.
Preparing for the journey home
The purpose for compiling the first 5 books of the Old Testament was quite simply to prepare the Israelites living in Babylon for their journey back home.
This is why they referred to the land they were returning to as "the Promised Land", "a land flowing with milk and honey", and their "inheritance".
This is why the Torah contained examples of others who had left one land to go to another. Through the stories of Abraham and Moses, the idea of leaving behind a land they knew to go to a land they did not know was packaged and presented to the Israelites living in Babylon - who were now being asked to do the same thing themselves.
Abraham was born and raised in Ur, near the southern Euphrates river in Mesopotamia. That's the land of Babylon, the same land the Israelites were now living in. Yet he moved out of that land and went to the land west of the Jordan River, and the account tells how God blessed him for it.
In the time of Moses, a great many Israelites were born and raised in Egypt. Yet they moved out of that land and went to the land west of the Jordan River, and the account tells how God blessed them for it.
Do we see the recurring theme? After more than 50 years in captivity, most of the original captives were no longer alive. By the time of their release in 539-538 BC, most Israelites had been born and raised in Babylon. Babylon was the only land they knew. Most did not know the land to which they were going, west of the Jordan River.
But if Abraham and his family living in Mesopotamia did it, if Moses and the Israelites living in Egypt did it - that is, left a land they knew to go to a land they did not know - and it went well for them... then it would also go well for the Israelites being asked to leave Babylon, the only land most of them knew, to go to a land almost none of them knew.
And thus, I propose... The Old Testament was written to organize the Israelites exiled in Babylon into a new nation, encouraging them to pack their belongings and go to the land west of the Jordan River with zeal and courage.
This is why they took several persons from other cultures and made them their own... including Uta-napishtim (whom they renamed Noah), Abram (whom they renamed Abraham), Imhotep (whom they renamed Joseph), and Moses - giving them a sense of national identity and pride.
Many of the Old Testament's accounts, laws, and people were adopted from external sources, modified, tweaked, and repackaged to give the Israelites courage on their return to "the land of their forefathers" and the "Promised Land" - a testament and promise that God would be with them just as He was with Abraham and Moses and all the families who made similar moves so very long before.
I contend...
Yet I contend the most important piece of information was withheld from the Israelites living in Babylon... that their religion was started by an ancient Pharaoh of Egypt whom they did not even know... Akhenaten.
I contend their leader Moses was not of Israelite descent, but was Egyptian, a high priest of the Egyptian god Aten.
I contend the early Israelites were not descended from Abram of Ur of Mesopotamia, but were descended from Egyptians, monotheists who were expelled from Egypt when the founder of their religion - Akhenaten - died.
I contend the Israelites were first told they descended from Abram in 539 BC when the Torah was written, as they prepared to resettle west of the Jordan River. I further contend the only reason they were told they descended from Abram of Ur was to draw a parallel between Abram's leaving the land of Sumer (same land as Babylon) to go west of the Jordan - just as the Israelites were being asked to leave Babylon to go west of the Jordan in 539 BC.
I contend Jewish religion was shaped by Babylonian mythology, and their nation was built on Babylonian laws. I further contend had the Israelites not been taken captive into Babylon, they would not have had the law code they had, nor the same story of creation, nor the story of Noah's flood - for these were all Babylonian.
Even their temple and their monotheism were not entirely theirs, but were Egyptian.
As much as I cherish the ancient wisdom found in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, I must draw attention to the religion's origins... it originated in Egypt, with significant restructuring in Babylon.
Joseph Cafariello
PS... (June 9, 2024):
This section is to support my claim that Abraham was not known by the Israelites prior to the end of their Babylonian captivity, prior to 539 BC when the Torah and the bulk of the Old Testament were compiled.
As I explain in my post, I contend the stories of Abraham, Noah, and creation were derived from Babylonian sources, and were inserted into the Old Testament in 539 BC when it was compiled.
When preparing the Torah in 539 BC, the priests gathered together their sacred books and texts and compiled them together. These included the Book of Jasher, the Book of The Wars of the Lord, the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Judah, the Annals of King David, the Acts of Solomon, and many others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible
They also gathered the books of the prophets, such as Isaiah and others, and combined them with the newly written Torah to form the first version of the Old Testament, which was later expanded after their return to their homeland.
When compiling these dozens of works into one single work, I contend the Old Testament writers added stories from Babylonian sources, including the creation story, the flood story, and adapted portions of the law code of Hammurabi. I contend this is when Abraham appears in scripture for the first time - in 539 BC, as the Israelites were preparing to leave Babylon to resettle in their homeland.
To support my claim that Abraham made his first appearance in scripture in 539 BC, we need only look at the references made to Abraham in the Old Testament, and where these references are. Let us examine them...
The vast majority of the references made to Abraham appear in the Torah, the first 5 books of the Bible, which I have already supported in my post as having been written in 539 BC. Hence, none of the references to Abraham in the Torah refute my claim that Abraham made his first appearance in scripture in 539 BC.
Outside the Torah, there are the following references to Abraham to consider (I am using the Old Testament as it appears in the Bible):
• 2 references in the book of Joshua:
"It is not known when the Book was written... Some scholars believe it was written ... in 550 BC, at the time of the Babylonian exile, when there was a desire to remember and retell their own history." https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Joshua
I contend Joshua was also compiled in 539 BC, as multiple older texts were consulted and copied in order to establish a record of Israel's history. In either case... 550 or 539 BC, the 2 references to Abraham in the book of Joshua do not refute my claim that Abraham made his first appearance toward the end of Babylonian captivity.
• Multiple references in the books of Kings and Chronicles:
As I already noted above, numerous books and chronicles of the kings were consulted in 539 BC in Babylon when the bulk of the Old Testament was compiled. Thus, these references to Abraham in the books of Kings and Chronicles do not refute my claim of Abraham's late appearance in 539 BC.
• 1 reference in Nehemiah:
This one is easy, since the book describes the reconstruction of Jerusalem after Babylonian captivity. Hence, it does not refute my claim of Abraham's late insertion into scripture.
• 4 references in the Psalms:
"While many of the psalms contain attributions to the name of King David and other Biblical figures including Asaph, the sons of Korah, and Solomon, David's authorship is not accepted by most modern Bible scholars, who instead attribute the composition of the psalms to various authors writing between the 9th and 5th centuries BC. ... the book was probably compiled and edited into its present form during the post-exilic period in the 5th century BC.[5]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalms
Psalms is similar to the books of Kings and Chronicles noted above, which were compiled along with other scripture in Babylon in 539 BC. And here too, references to Abraham do not refute my claim that Abraham first appeared in scripture in 539 BC.
• 4 references in Isaiah:
"... there is evidence that much of it was composed during the Babylonian captivity and later.[2] Johann Christoph Döderlein suggested in 1775 that the book contained the works of two prophets separated by more than a century,[3] and Bernhard Duhm originated the view, held as a consensus through most of the 20th century, that the book comprises three separate collections of oracles:[4][5] Proto-Isaiah (chapters 1–39), containing the words of the 8th-century BC prophet Isaiah; Deutero-Isaiah, or "the Book of Consolation",[6] (chapters 40–55), the work of an anonymous 6th-century BCE author writing during the Exile; and Trito-Isaiah (chapters 56–66), composed after the return from Exile.[7]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah
3 of the references to Abraham in Isaiah are located in chapters 41, 51 and 63. As noted in the Wikipedia reference above, these chapters are considered to have been written during and after Babylonian captivity, and thus do not refute my claim that Abraham first appeared in scripture in 539 BC.
The one remaining reference to Abraham in Isaiah appears in chapter 29. This may very well be the only reference to Abraham which refutes my claim that Abraham first appeared in scripture in 539 BC.
However, we must be aware that the scribes compiling the scriptures in 539 BC consulted dozens upon dozens of scrolls and manuscripts, which they made mention of by name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible
Edits and additions were absolutely needed to make sense of the works which were all being compiled into one work for the first time. Since not all of their material was in sequential order, gaps in the record needed to be filled by the scribes at the time the works were being blended together into one single work in 539 BC. We can easily see how this one reference to Abraham could have been added to Isaiah 29 in the year 539 BC, in the interest of harmonizing such a large quantity of scrolls into one work.
• 1 reference in Jeremiah:
"It is generally agreed that the three types of material interspersed through the book – poetic, narrative, and biographical – come from different sources or circles.[16] Authentic oracles of Jeremiah are probably to be found in the poetic sections of chapters 1-25, but the book as a whole has been heavily edited and added to by followers (including perhaps the prophet's companion, the scribe Baruch) and later generations of Deuteronomists.[5] The date of the final versions of the book (Greek and Hebrew) can be suggested by the fact that the Greek shows concerns typical of the early Persian period, while the Masoretic (i.e., Hebrew) shows perspectives which, although known in the Persian period, did not reach their realisation until the 2nd century BCE.[7]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Jeremiah
In other words, the book of Jeremiah can be divided into 3 sections - poetic, narrative, and biographical - each written by different people. As the quote mentions, "the book as a whole has been heavily edited and added to".
Chapters 1-25 are likely the original portion written by Jeremiah (or others of his time) around the beginning of the Babylonian captivity period. But the 1 reference to Abraham appears in chapter 33, in the section that was added later.
How much later could these additions have been made? Two versions of the book exist - one in Greek, the other in Hebrew.
The Greek version "shows concerns typical of the early Persian period" - which is after Babylonian captivity. Cyrus the Great who freed the Israelites from Babylon was king of Persia. The "early Persian period" refers to the period shortly after Israel's release from Babylon.
The Hebrew version "shows perspectives which, although known in the Persian period, did not reach their realization until the 2nd century BCE".
Both versions of the book of Jeremiah, therefore, can be dated to after Babylonian captivity at the earliest. Thus, the 1 reference to Abraham in the book of Jeremiah does not refute my claim that Abraham first appeared in scripture in 539 BC.
• 1 reference in Ezekiel:
"The Book of Ezekiel describes itself as the words of Ezekiel ben-Buzi, a priest living in exile in the city of Babylon between 593 and 571 BC. Most scholars today ... see in it significant additions by a school of later followers of the original prophet. According to Jewish tradition, the Men of the Great Assembly wrote the Book of Ezekiel, based on the prophet's words.[16] ... it is the product of a long and complex history and does not necessarily preserve the very words of the prophet.[2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Ezekiel
Here again we have a book with "significant additions by ... later followers". And such additions "[do] not necessarily preserve the very words of the prophet". Here too, this reference to Abraham does not refute my claim that Abraham first appeared in scripture in 539 BC.
• 1 reference in Micah:
"Some, but not all, scholars accept that only chapters 1–3 contain material from the late 8th century prophet Micah.[10] The latest material comes from the post-exilic period after the temple was rebuilt in 515 BCE, so that the early 5th century BCE seems to be the period when the book was completed.[14] ... Still later ... the book was revised and expanded further to reflect the circumstances of the late exilic and post-exilic community.[17]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Micah
In other words, only the first 3 chapters can be dated to the prophet Micah's century (8th BC). The remainder of the book was "revised and expanded" in the late Babylonian captivity and post-Babylonian captivity periods.
Where is Micah's one reference to Abraham? In chapter 7 - the portion of additions. Thus, here too, this reference to Abraham does not refute my claim that Abraham first appeared in scripture in 539 BC.
Of all these references to Abraham, only one could possibly refute my claim that Abraham was invented and inserted into scripture in 539 BC in Babylon at the time the Torah and other early Old Testament books were compiled.
Only one exception to my claim? For such an important figure as Abraham? The one who received the promise?
Indeed, there is only one reference that could possibly prove Abraham was known to the Israelites prior to 539 BC. Yet, as I considered above, even this one reference could have been an addition inserted at the time all these sources were consulted in the writing of the Old Testament in Babylon in 539 BC.
Given the absence of any other pre-539 BC reference to Abraham, I still must contend Abraham was "invented" and added into scripture for the first time in 539 BC, for the sole purpose of drawing a parallel between Abram's leaving the land of Sumer (same land as Babylon) to go west of the Jordan - just as the Israelites were being asked to leave Babylon to go west of the Jordan in 539 BC., as I describe in the last section of my post.