Egyptian exodus proof or slavery?

[Ehav4Ever]

BJ4: There is no parallel natural event in Egypt.

Not true. I covered this already.

Again, I will repost what I stated earlier. See my post below:

Post #376: Ehav4Ever answered this

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Geography 1 Flood Waters. MP (Mesopotamia): No evidence of flood waters staying for 150 days. IV (Indus Valley): Bowl-like structure near Jalore could hold waters for 150 days.

Geography 2 Distance between Flood area and Ararat traversable by boat: MP: Ararat Mountains are located 600-1000 km from the flood area. Aravalli mountains located 150 km from the flood area.

Archaeology: MP: Evidence for habitation at 8000 BCE. Evidence of flood at 3000 BCE. IV: Floods on Luni River started at 3000 BCE.

Names: MP: No name parallel to Noah. IV: The name “Ararat” not found in ancient texts. IV: “Noah” is written as “Noach” which is then also written as “Manowach.” “Manowach” and “Manu” both have the same two consonants “M” and “N.” Ararat=Aravalli. The name Jalore of the place where the flood took place means “city of water.”

Literature: MP: Gilgamesh tells of the Flood in Dilmun that is identified with the Indus Valley by Kramer. No flood tale, to my knowledge, in Sumeric literature. IV: A flood took place at the time of Vaivaswat Manu. He was saved in a boat with 7 persons.

Already addressed. The Christian English translation you are using is not consistant with the Hebrew Torah (written and oral). See a repost of what I already posted on this.

The Torah account in Hebrew doesn’t make the flood to only be a rise in water levels. The word in Hebrew (מבול) “Mabul” doesn’t mean, on its own, flood. It also carries the meaning of destruction, decay. A better English approximation would be the term Mass Extinction Event. The Hebrew text used several other words to describe what was taking place and a number of Jewish Oral Torah sources state that something to the level of either a comet, asteroid, shift in earth axis, splitting of Pangea Earth level of events.

Below, Midrash Rabba (written ~300 and 500 CE) states that the structure of the world was different before the Mabul and that there was essnetially one huge ocean and one landmass.

Zohar, same thing. One massive land mass surrounded by ocean which was split into 7 landmasses.

Similar to the concept of continental drift.

Josephus,Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, Chapter 3:5, makes the following statement:

“Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among whom is Berosus the Chaldean. For when he is describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: "It is said there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets for the averting of mischiefs." Hieronymus the Egyptian also, who wrote the Phoenician Antiquities, and Mnaseas, and a great many more, make mention of the same. Nay, Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them; where he speaks thus: "There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved.”​

Concerning the different concepts of time found in the Hebrew Torah see the following.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Already addressed. The Christian English translation you are using is not consistant with the Hebrew Torah (written and oral). See a repost of what I already posted on this.

I am open to the possibility that Christian-Strong's interpretation may not be correct. But that is only a possibility. Please specify what exactly is incorrect. Otherwise it would be like saying "'The sun does not shine' because one is looking at it through the sun glasses."

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Zohar, same thing. One massive land mass surrounded by ocean which was split into 7 landmasses.

The problem is of the time. We need to agree on the timing of the Flood and Exodus first; then we may look at the geological evidence at that time.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I am open to the possibility that Christian-Strong's interpretation may not be correct. But that is only a possibility.

Based on what you determine if there is something wrong with it or not wrong with it? Further, if you don't mind me asking, what is your view of Strong's experience to create it?

Please specify what exactly is incorrect.

I did that already. I provided details on this issue at two or three times. I also showed you earlier where I did it the first time.

Otherwise it would be like saying "'The sun does not shine' because one is looking at it through the sun glasses."

No. It is more like saying:

"I am not a Hindu. I don't know Sanskrit. That being the reality, I would have to be honest with myself that I can't claim to have an authoratative or serious view on a more than 3,000 year old Sanskrit text preserved by Hindus if I am:

1. Reading a translation made by a non-Hindu.
2. Using a concordance made for the purpose of the translation and not made based on the original.
3. Using a concordance which native fluent Sanskrit readers and non-native Sanskrit users state does not give an understanding fo the original Sanskrit text.

This is especially true if a native Sanskrit Hindu shows, from the original, where I am wrong."

 

[Ehav4Ever]

But that is only a possibility. Please specify what exactly is incorrect.

Here you go, again. In both of these comments I answered this already.

Egyptian exodus proof or slavery? (Part 1)

Egyptian exodus proof or slavery? (Part 2)

 

[Ehav4Ever]

The problem is of the time. We need to agree on the timing of the Flood and Exodus first; then we may look at the geological evidence at that time.

We don't have to agree on a dates. We aren't even reading from the same texts, and we don't have the same experience with the topic.

What we can agree on is the following. We can agree on is the following:

1. Your theory is based on
   • English translations you use
   • Strong's
   • Theories held by various Christian ministers in the last ~200 years.
   • theories you personally hold about those.
2. My statements are based on the following:

 

[River Sea]

Yes. Form can be different. Some hear sound.

I'm going to ask @Seeker of White Light this too
What are your thoughts about hear sound?

Please know @Seeker of White Light and @Bharat Jhunjhunwala and @Ehav4Ever I comprehend we're all included.

@Seeker of White Light in another thread, we related about seeing white light in people, radiate outward while white light continue in people.

Maybe this is multi tasking and I might appear inadequate at this, but I'll give it a try., as that's how I'll improve with communication

• Collective Consciousness what is that?
• @Ehav4Ever explain Elohim is big bang. Hashem is power.
• @Seeker of White Light and myself relate about seeing white light in people, radiate outward while continue seeing white light in people.,
• and now @Bharat Jhunjhunwala bring attention to sound, so can we explore this area too (sound)
• While also how to remain on topic

1. Did Irvith (Hebrews) hear God while traveling to Yisrael?

2. Did Moses hear God?

3. When I'm in relation with light I'll at times hear light in my mind, however, I can't recall an extreme difference then from my voice how that sounds in my mind. Can you relate, or do you hear a different voice in your mind?

4. Did God speak so loud that many heard God at the same time from in their minds or distance from their minds while traveling to Yisrael?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

1. Did Irvith (Hebrews) hear Hashem while traveling to Yisrael?

If you mean Yisrael/Ivrim/Jews, during the giving of the Ten Statements/Commands at Mount Sinai according to Torath Mosheh Israeli/Jewish sources - Hashem caused a situation where the entire people there both Israelis/Jews and the Egyptians/Non-Egyptians all became what we call in Ivrith (נביאים) "Nevi'im". The idea being that the statements of Hashem were both heard and seen visually by everyone present.

After that point, everyone elected Mosheh ben-Amram to be the one to communicate directly with Hashem, due to the experience being overwhelming. The focus at that point was that everyone learn the principles of the mitzvoth and use Torah based logical and sceinetific analysis to make decisions.

The preference is that Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews logic developed from the written Torah and the oral Torah developed throughout every generation rather than to have rely on being (נביאים) "Nevi'im".

2. Did Moses hear Hashem?

According to Torath Mosheh Israeli/Jewish sources, Mosheh ben-Amram was different from all of the other (נביאים) "Nevi'im". The difference was that with all of the (נביאים) "Nevi'im" mentioned in the Tanakh Hashem communicated with them in dreams/semi-awake and sleep states. Also, Hashem communicated with them with symbolisim that they had to use their intelligence to transmit to Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews of their generation so that it would be understand. With these (נביאים) "Nevi'im" Hashem did not communicate with them all of the time, and they had to wait and be prepared for such a thing to happen. For example, some of them Hashem only communicated with them once in their lifetime, some more often.

With Mosheh ben-Amram was different. He could communicate with Hashem at any time and he never had to be prepared to be in such a state. Further, Hashem did not communicate with the type of symbolism that the other (נביאים) "Nevi'im" had. With Mosheh ben-Amram the experience was more direct BUT also with the limitations of being Human. Unlike the other (נביאים) "Nevi'im", Mosheh ben-Amram understood the limitations on himself and others. The other (נביאים) "Nevi'im" did not know there were limitations based on their own personal situation.

To give an example, there is a Torath Mosheh Jewish source that describes the differences like this. It was AS IF Mosheh ben-Amram dealt with Hashem while looking through 1 unclear lense. Mosheh ben-Amram understood this and recognized that there was an unclear lense between him and his understanding of Hashem. The other (נביאים) "Nevi'im" dealt with Hashem AS IF they were looking through 15 or more unclear lenses, depending on their situation. Unlike Mosheh ben-Amram they did have the ability to determine that there were 15 or more unclear lenses between them and their understanding of Hashem. They simply understood what was basically necessary for themselves and for their generation of Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews.

Again, this is based on Torath Mosheh Jewish information going back more than 2,000 years.

I hope that helps.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

• Your theory is based on
  • English translations you use
  • Strong's
  • Theories held by various Christian ministers in the last ~200 years.
  • theories you personally hold about those.

• My statements are based on the following:

Hello. Wihtout denying or accepting your characterization, I think this discussion can proceed only if you take some words/phrases/verses and show why the Christian basis may be wrong and YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE HEBREW BASIS may be right. The basis being different does not mean they are contradictory. A physician and a psychologist may approach a patient with different basis but arrive at same conclusions, for example.
Let me assure you that I am willing to change my views if the errors can be shown.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

With Mosheh ben-Amram was different. He could communicate with Hashem at any time and he never had to be prepared to be in such a state.

Agree.

Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews logic developed from the written Torah and the oral Torah developed throughout every generation

Torath is good and everlasting. Oral traditions can much influenced by their time and need not be accepted necessarily.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Collective Consciousness what is that?

"Panpsychism" holds that every physical atom has consciousness. Sociologist Emile Durkheim holds that the consciousness of constituents coalesces to make a "Collective Consciousness" (CC). Carl Jung holds that Collective Consciousness (which he calls "archetypes") lives in the deep unconscious. I combine these statements to suggest that
the collective of consciousness residing in our unconscious is GOD. This CC appears as light, sound or whatever...

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Torath is good and everlasting. Oral traditions can much influenced by their time and need not be accepted necessarily.

Lucikly, with Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews Hashem gave our ancestors both a written Torah and an Oral Torah. The fact that Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews can still read the Torah while others cultues that did not receive connect, unless somewhere down the line Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews taught them, is a testimony to the Torah (written and oral) that Hashem gave to Am Yisrael/Benei Yisrael is still kept among Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews.

Someone who goes by the tradition of English translators can of course hold by what ever they feel their god of choice gave them, by way of a the traditions of translations.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Hello. Wihtout denying or accepting your characterization

Consider though that IF my characterization was false, even slightly, you would be able to immediately prove it false without hesitation. Again, my charicterization is based on your own words.

I think this discussion can proceed only if you take some words/phrases/verses and show why the Christian basis may be wrong and YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE HEBREW BASIS may be right.

Incorrect. That is not how that works. The discussion was already done. Besides, I addressed all of your points. You don't have to like what I provided. You are free to conclude whatever you want about the obviously extinct people you are talking about.

Now that we are clear that you are using a Christian basis and, as you stated yourself, you are not an expert in Judaism and you are not an expert in the Hebrew language you can continue to post your theories now that we have clearly identified what they are and where you got them from.

Lastly, you are under no requirement to accept anything that has been in the possesion of Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews for thousands of years. You can accept whatever form of English bible and god that you like.

 

[River Sea]

collective of consciousness residing in our unconscious is GOD. This CC appears as light, sound or whatever...

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala
CC also appears feeding our spirit heart, (burn fire) we can include this too along with light sound. I notice when I allow CC teach me is when CC feeds my spirit heart (fire burn)

 

[River Sea]

If you mean Yisrael/Ivrim/Jews, during the giving of the Ten Statements/Commands at Mount Sinai according to Torath Mosheh Israeli/Jewish sources - Hashem caused a situation where the entire people there both Israelis/Jews and the Egyptians/Non-Egyptians all became what we call in Ivrith (נביאים) "Nevi'im". The idea being that the statements of Hashem were both heard and seen visually by everyone present.

After that point, everyone elected Mosheh ben-Amram to be the one to communicate directly with Hashem, due to the experience being overwhelming. The focus at that point was that everyone learn the principles of the mitzvoth and use Torah based logical and sceinetific analysis to make decisions.

The preference is that Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews logic developed from the written Torah and the oral Torah developed throughout every generation rather than to have rely on being (נביאים) "Nevi'im".



According to Torath Mosheh Israeli/Jewish sources, Mosheh ben-Amram was different from all of the other (נביאים) "Nevi'im". The difference was that with all of the (נביאים) "Nevi'im" mentioned in the Tanakh Hashem communicated with them in dreams/semi-awake and sleep states. Also, Hashem communicated with them with symbolisim that they had to use their intelligence to transmit to Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews of their generation so that it would be understand. With these (נביאים) "Nevi'im" Hashem did not communicate with them all of the time, and they had to wait and be prepared for such a thing to happen. For example, some of them Hashem only communicated with them once in their lifetime, some more often.

With Mosheh ben-Amram was different. He could communicate with Hashem at any time and he never had to be prepared to be in such a state. Further, Hashem did not communicate with the type of symbolism that the other (נביאים) "Nevi'im" had. With Mosheh ben-Amram the experience was more direct BUT also with the limitations of being Human. Unlike the other (נביאים) "Nevi'im", Mosheh ben-Amram understood the limitations on himself and others. The other (נביאים) "Nevi'im" did not know there were limitations based on their own personal situation.

To give an example, there is a Torath Mosheh Jewish source that describes the differences like this. It was AS IF Mosheh ben-Amram dealt with Hashem while looking through 1 unclear lense. Mosheh ben-Amram understood this and recognized that there was an unclear lense between him and his understanding of Hashem. The other (נביאים) "Nevi'im" dealt with Hashem AS IF they were looking through 15 or more unclear lenses, depending on their situation. Unlike Mosheh ben-Amram they did have the ability to determine that there were 15 or more unclear lenses between them and their understanding of Hashem. They simply understood what was basically necessary for themselves and for their generation of Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews.

Again, this is based on Torath Mosheh Jewish information going back more than 2,000 years.

I hope that helps.

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala @Ehav4Ever

• Irvith means people with Mosheh (Moses) so not dependent on zera of Abraham correct?

• Misunderstanding this word Hebrew from zera of Abraham: then many later converted in relation to what? If they're thinking word Hebrew compare to word Irvith?

• Mosheh means Moses

• Torath means Torah

• Religion: Torath Mosheh means your religion is Torah Moses (what is religion compare to spirituality, is it court of spirituality, is that what religion means?)

• Mosheh ben-Amram means Moses son of Amram

• Nevi'im (prophet)

• Everyone heard and saw Hashem.

• However due to overwhelm, everyone chosen Mosheh to continue for them.

• So Mosheh continue and was in direct communication with Hashem

• So Mosheh wasn't a Nevi'im compare to others - because Mosheh was in direct communication with Hashem

• Nevi'im aren't in direct communication with Hashem because limited communicating through dreams/semi-awake and sleep states

• So Irvith means people with Mosheh, this also includes anyone who's not of zera of Abraham as they too were with Mosheh that's what Irvith means, am I understanding this correctly?

• Irvith means people with Mosheh (Moses)

• so when people understanding word Hebrew they're thinking only zera of Abraham.

• Yet Irvith means people with Mosheh (Moses) and has nothing to do with zera of Abraham, am I comprehending this correctly?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

• Torath means Torah

Torath means "Torah of".

 

[Ehav4Ever]

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala @Ehav4Ever

• Irvith means people with Mosheh (Moses) so not dependent on zera of Abraham correct?

No, Ivrith does not mean that.

The following video explains what it means at 21:29.

Take note that until I brought up the correct pronunciation (עברי) and (עברית) on RF the term Ivrith was not being used by anyone. Meaning that, before that point, on RF most people were using the term "Hebrew" and now some have switched terms.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Take note that until I brought up the correct pronunciation the term Ivrith was not being used by anyone.

Sophomoric childishness duly noted. Back to the ignore-list -->

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Sophomoric childishness duly noted. Back to the ignore-list -->

I thought you did that already. You can keep me on your ignore list. There is no need to take me off of it. I will continue from here.