Egyptian exodus proof or slavery?

[Ehav4Ever]

All this still does not mean Strongs was wrong.

For Jews it does. Thus, people who know Hebrew don't use a Strong's concordance. It is a Christian "tradition" created using Christian/Methodist standards/traditions. If Christian tradition is fine for you then go for. Just be clear that you are using a Christian tradition that is not to understand how the actual Hebrew text is correctly understood.

Please give a specific concordance of the Torah made by him and show how and why he is wrong.

I provided you with several articles, some of which were made by Christians, who showed mistakes his the text and where Christians who use it can be mistaken to think they understand something they don't actually understand. I also provided information of how non-Hebrew and non-Greek speakers at times misuse the strong's concordance.

Happy to amend my views.

You don't have to amend your view. I am not trying to change your "opinion." I am simply making it clear that your view is based on "Chrsitian tradition" and "Christian sources." NOT on actually being able to read a Hebrew text.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Agree. But this does not go anywhere. You have to be able to show where my understanding is incorrect, if at all.

It does. We have now made it clear that your sources/understading is based on Christian tradition/texts/translations and not the actual Hebrew text. We have also cleared up what a translation is and what is is not. Thus, when you make a statement it is now clear where you are getting your views from.

That means it is clear that when you used statements like "bible" and "OT" you were referencing Christian translations, traditions, and resources and those are what shape your views of those texts.

I am on the other hand, go by the Hebrew text and show from the Hebrew text where my statements are coming from and what they are based on. I can also show how other Torath
Mosheh, going back thousands of years who also knew Hebrew, support that what I stated. Thus, when I post directly from a Hebrew text or I post a video I have to explain history here in the region I live in am showing that I have a mastery of the text, the languages, and the history of the subject matter.

So, we have made a lot of progress in clearing that up.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

You have to be able to show where my understanding is incorrect, if at all.

I did that already. Every time you made a statement that was not supported by the Hebrew text I showed you where the Hebrew contracted what you stated and I provided information to what is actually stated in the Hebrew text.

You have to understand, if would silly for a person who knows a language to debate with someone who doesn't about a "translation" someone else produced. If a real discussion is to be had you take out the original and prove a point based on that alone. That is what researchers and experts do.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

For me I have found Strong's Concordance to be handy when trying to identify Hebrew and Greek words and then to go to another more thorough word book to be a better picture of the meaning of a word than is offered in Strong's.

This example may help you understand what I mean. Below is a HIndu text.

Now, let us be clear. I don't know Sanskrit. That is me being 1000% honest at the start. I am being 10,000% honest in the fact that I don't know the culture this text comes from, and even if I sat down and did a bit of research to learn that the above is a part of the Rigveda that literally means nothing to someone who a) can read it fluently, b) grew up a culture studying the written text from childhoon, c) is an active participant in the culture the text is derived from, and d) lives in the region the text came from.

So, me being honest at a level of 1,000,000% I would state clearly that my understanding is a) not in any way authoratative, b) not reliable, and c) is nothing near compariable to someone who knows the language, culture, and history of this text intimately and personally.

No amount of lexiconing and dictionaring for one or two words from the basis of a a non-Hindu's Hebrew translation of the above text will ever make me a reliable source of information about what is in the above text.

These statements are me bing 10,000,000,000% intellectually honest

That is the point I am getting out.

 

[Brian2]

This example may help you understand what I mean. Below is a HIndu text.

Now, let us be clear. I don't know Sanskrit. That is me being 1000% honest at the start. I am being 10,000% honest in the fact that I don't know the culture this text come, and even if I sat down and did a bit of research to learn that the above is a part of the Rigveda that literally means nothing to someone who a) can read it fluently, b) grew up a culture studying the written text from childhoon, c) is an active participant in the culture the text is derived from, and d) lives in the region the text came from.

So, me being honest at a level of 1,000,000% I would state clearly that my understanding is a) not in any way authoratative, b) not reliable, and c) is nothing near compariable to someone who knows the language, culture, and history of this text intimately and personally.

No amount of lexiconing and dictionaring for one or two words from the basis of a a non-Hindu's Hebrew translation of the above text will ever make me a reliable source of information about what is in the above text.

These statements are me bing 10,000,000,000% intellectually honest

That is the point I am getting out.

Thanks. 100% honest is enough.

 

[River Sea]

Word of life lives in me., and lives in all of us and lives in these people way back in time., living word lives in all of us, and inspires us to communicate., I allow God teach me

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

You have to understand, if would silly for a person who knows a language to debate with someone who doesn't about a "translation" someone else produced. If a real discussion is to be had you take out the original and prove a point based on that alone. That is what researchers and experts do.

I agree that it would be good to know language. However, when we are dealing with Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Arabic, Sanskrit and Indus Script, we necessarily have to work with translations UNLESS THE SPECIFIC ERRORS ARE POINTED OUT. To give an example, we can appreciate an apple without knowing its sugar content. However, if a particular species of apple is flat, we would look into the sugar content. It cannot be said that I should not appreciate an apple without knowing its sugar content. Similarly, we can appreciate the Hebrew text without knowing the Hebrew language. However, if a particular verse appears out-of-sync, we would look into the Hebrew words. It cannot be said that one should not appreciate the Hebrew text without knowing the Hebrew language.
Incidentally, I face the same problem with the Muslims and Hindus.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

living word lives in all of us, and inspires us to communicate., I allow God teach me

Yes. Agree. The challenge is to express the inspiration into words of a language.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I agree that it would be good to know language. However, when we are dealing with Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Arabic, Sanskrit and Indus Script

You can work with what "translations" you want as long as you are honest that you are working off of a translation and not the original text. Thus, a person is clearly informed that they are not working with an expert in the subject matter. It further makes it more clear when someone is presenting their "opinion" based on said translation.

we necessarily have to work with translations

You may have to work with a translation, because as you yourself mentioned, you are not an expert in Torah/Tanakh/Judaism/Hebrew/Aramaic/etc.

Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews teach our children how to be experts by teaching them Hebrew/Aramaic/Judeo-Arabic/Judeo-Persian/Yiddish/etc. from the start. Thus, we have a higher percentage of people, per capita, who understand all various of ancient Hebrew.

Thus, if a person is willing to accept the opinion of someone who doesn't know the languages/cultures in question first hand then they know where to go. If they want to get a view of exactly what the texts say, and don't say, they also know where to go to have someone show them the text and where said information is even coming from.

UNLESS THE SPECIFIC ERRORS ARE POINTED OUT.

Did that already. I also pointed out that the source of information you are using to interpret your translations are Christian sources. It was also pointed out why this is reliable system, and thus not accepted by Jews.

To give an example, we can appreciate an apple without knowing its sugar content. However, if a particular species of apple is flat, we would look into the sugar content. It cannot be said that I should not appreciate an apple without knowing its sugar content.

I will give you a better example.

1. If someone could care less if fruit is actually an apple or not then they can get the opinion off the street of anyone, because to that person what the fruit doesn't matter to them.
2. If a person needs to know exactly what type of fruit it is because they plan on consuming it and there is a requirement for them to consume an specifically and only an apple then knowing exactly what they are handling is important.
   • They could easily go to someone who does not know how to identify fruit OR they could go to someone who has a proven record of identifying fruit, working in the field of successfully growing fruit, and has physically studied fruit.

Similarly, we can appreciate the Hebrew text without knowing the Hebrew language.

In reality, what you are apprecting is the "translator" of what you are reading, their choices in presenting their view of a "translation," and you are appreciating the text/translation they [the translator] produced in your target language. You are not appreciating the original text because you have direct contact with it. Further, you have no way to validate your chosen translator's ability/skill level to transfer the information of the text; including direct concepts conveyed by words and indirect concepts conveyed by how the text is constructed.

For example, based on the translation you read please describe what they explain about the areas I marked in green.

Bemidbar 6:22-27

Note: These gaps are a part of the meaning of the text and are not arbitrarily there.

However, if a particular verse appears out-of-sync, we would look into the Hebrew words.

The fact that you think that verses is how Hebrew is understand shows my point. The "verse" system was created by Christians for a particular purpose and was not originally adopted by Jews. When Jews did come up with a similar system it created situations where verses in Christian translations don't always align with what we Jews call Pasuqim in the Hebrew text. Thus, there are times were Christians don't understand that their translators have added commas, semicolons, and periods in places where they don't exist in the original Hebrew. Thus, there are times where Christian verse groupings and punciation betray either their lack of knowledge of the original or an agenda that is new testaement centered.

It cannot be said that one should not appreciate the Hebrew text without knowing the Hebrew language.

Appreciating something, even if it is filtered through a translation, is one thing and perfectly fine. Making a claim about a text that you can't read for yourself and a culture that you don't fully understand is another.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

For those who are wondering why all of the back and forth about translation issues. I did the following video concerning a cult in Texas that has fooled people by way of faking translation.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Another point related to translation. The following is a part of the Torah that I have never seen a Christian translators address.

In the below section of the Torah from Sefer Bemidbar, everything that I have marked in green or circled in red are part of how Jews who know Hebrew have to address the text. Meaning, that beyond just understanding words, there are structural reasons what what I marked is that there determines.

With that being said, the gaps and marked in green and the letters circled in red a important parts of understanding what is written here. For more than 3,000 years there has been a transmission of Torath Mosheh for the meaning of this, why it MUST be in all kosher Torah scrolls, and how the understanding of this part of the Torah relies on what I have marked being there.

I have yet to seen a translation geared for non-Jews address this and thus it is often lost in translation, sometimes even in Jewish translations into English.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

The fact that you think that verses is how Hebrew is understand shows my point.

No need to be so literal. Please let us re-phrase. If there is any difference regarding the text, then we can get into the details.

 

[River Sea]

@Ehav4Ever Do you believe Allah and YHWH Hashem are one and the same God?

​

 

[Ehav4Ever]

@Ehav4Ever Do you believe Allah and YHWH Hashem are one and the same God?

​

​

The following may help.

How Torah based Jews Understand the Hebrew Tanakh's View of the Creator

 

[River Sea]

The following may help.

How Torah based Jews Understand the Hebrew Tanakh's View of the Creator

@Ehav4Ever
I watch your video

Elohim = big bang
Question: Would Allah = big bang too?
Because Allah and Elohim have the same meaning?

• Meaning: Hashem is the source of all reality i.e. the cause of reality

• Elohim means: Strength / Power

Snips from your video

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I watch your video

Elohim = big bang
Question: Would Allah = big bang too?
Because Allah and Elohim have the same meaning?

Think of this way.

1. The Arabic term (إِلٰه) is a term that has historically used by Arabic speaking Jews and Arabic speaking Muslims to describe the Source of Creation/Reality prior to the Islamic era and after its inception.
2. Arabic speaking Jews, when writing in Judeo Arabic expressed the term (إِلٰه) by using the Ivri letters of (אללה) prior to the Islamic era and after.
3. The difference between what Jews and Muslims mean when we use the term (אללה) in Judeo-Arabic or (إِلٰه) in Arabic, deals with two particular issues.
   • The nature of how the Source of Creation/Reality interacted with Israel/Jews when the Torah was given at Mount Sinai.
   • The nature of how the Source of Creation/Reality dealt or did not deal with particular individuals outside of the Israeli/Jewish people, after the interaction the Source of Creation had with the Israeli/Jewish people at Mount Sinai.

I hope that helps.

 

[1213]

Is there proof of the Egyptian Exodus the story of Moses, the desert, and the red sea, is there any chariots found in the red sea? What's the Red sea deal anyways, I always heard that Moses' group got through the Red Sea, and the Egyptians got stuck, but some say the Red Sea was so shallow anyways that it didn't make sense.

What about the Pharoah, the leader of Egypt, what has been written by Egyptians about him?

I recommend reading The Exodus Case by Dr. Lennart Möller. It shows nice evidence for that Joseph was probably Imhotep and Moses was for Egyptians Senmut.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Think of this way.

1. The Arabic term (إِلٰه) is a term that has historically used by Arabic speaking Jews and Arabic speaking Muslims to describe the Source of Creation/Reality prior to the Islamic era and after its inception.
2. Arabic speaking Jews, when writing in Judeo Arabic expressed the term (إِلٰه) by using the Ivri letters of (אללה) prior to the Islamic era and after.
3. The difference between what Jews and Muslims mean when we use the term (אללה) in Judeo-Arabic or (إِلٰه) in Arabic, deals with two particular issues.
   • The nature of how the Source of Creation/Reality interacted with Israel/Jews when the Torah was given at Mount Sinai.
   • The nature of how the Source of Creation/Reality dealt or did not deal with particular individuals outside of the Israeli/Jewish people, after the interaction the Source of Creation had with the Israeli/Jewish people at Mount Sinai.

I hope that helps.

Can u please elaborate what are the differences on the 2 points. Thx

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Can u please elaborate what are the differences on the 2 points. Thx

Sure:

1. The difference between what Jews and Muslims mean when we use the term (אללה) in Judeo-Arabic or (إِلٰه) in Arabic, deals with two particular issues.
   • The nature of how the Source of Creation/Reality interacted with Israel/Jews when the Torah was given at Mount Sinai.
     • Torath Mosheh Israeli/Jewish claim is that Hashem, the Source of all reality/creation/etc. gave the Torah as a mass revelation "directly" to all Israelis and non-Israelis who were at Mount Sinai. Including, who are the correct Israelis to listen to on such matters - Mosheh ben-Amram being the head of them.
     • The written Torah was dictated by Hashem, the Source, to Mosheh ben-Amram who wrote exactly the words, written structure, and content as Hashem showed to him. Mosheh ben-Amram also taught the entire Israeli people/nation of his generation the oral Torah which explains how to understand and do the written Torah.
     • The final product, before entering the land of Israel, was an Israeli nation that had both a written Torah and an oral Torah from Hashem which was provided for all generations of Israelis go forward into the future to determine how to manage the reality that the Source created.
     • This included how to determine if a claim, made at any point in the future, by someone matches the Torah (written and oral) that Hashem, the Source gave to the Israeli people/nation. i.e. if Israeli/Jewish Torah based leadership has determined that something doesn't match, ignore it/stay away from it, if it does use the Torah to go forward with it.
   • The nature of how the Source of Creation/Reality dealt or did not deal with particular individuals outside of the Israeli/Jewish people, after the interaction the Source of Creation had with the Israeli/Jewish people at Mount Sinai.
     • In the Islamic claim their prophet is claimed to have been given a revelation from the Source of Creation/Reality, by way of what was claimed to be an angel, to a particular singular individual.
     • The information about that event, and others, was not transcribed/written by the one who claimed to have experienced it but by the followers of that person.
     • In this Islamic claim there is a recognition of the existance of an interaction between (إِلٰه) and the Israeli/Jewish people, prior to the Islamic individual mentioned above.
     • In the Islamic claim there are a number of views that divirge/are in conflict with what is mentioned from the Torath Mosheh Israeli/Jewish claim above.

That is pretty much what is meant.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Torath Mosheh Israeli/Jewish claim is that Hashem, the Source of all reality/creation/etc. gave the Torah as a mass revelation "directly"

In the Islamic claim their prophet is claimed to have been given a revelation from the Source of Creation/Reality, by way of what was claimed to be an angel, to a particular singular individual.

You are factually correct. But that seems to place one self proclamation above the other self proclamation. How do we solve this?