Yadavas Hebrews farmers. How come Jews thought Hebrews were slaves?

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

On

One would have to go back and reimaginr every geographical reference from the outset of Genesis as the use of Mitsrayim is well before the exodus story. If one wanted to imagine all of the geography from the garden if Eden on through in order to find a way to defend the Indus Valley then have fun. That doesn't work for me.

AS far as I know the first reference to Mitsrayim in the Bible is in the story of Abraham c. 2000 BCE. And, there was no place known as "Mitsrayim" in West Asia at that time. So we need to look at that.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Dr. Bharat. With all due respect, as a Phd in any field, and as an author and researcher, you must understand that this is a logical fallacy. When someone tells you Dr that when ever you make a historical statement, as a scholar one should have done the research on the original dating and the historicity of the statement. Thus, when you make statements about Ptolemy, and the Septuagint that we have today, you must do the study on the dating. When someone point's out something and asks you about the dating and if you have done that research, you should not turn around and ask the other person this question. You should show the intellectual or epistemic humility and say you don't know and will do so in the future.

I am no scholar on the Septuagint and it's history. I can give you some very common knowledge among academic circles and I don't have time to do the research at this moment. I will tell you what I remember. The septuagint has various versions. And all of these versions have grave errors in translation. E.g. Isiah 7:14 says Almah which means young woman and the Septuagint says Partinos which means virgin. Adam in Genesis was translated as Anthropos and only in the second episode left as Adam. And when referring to soldiers coming from Egypt and wondering in the wilderness has "listening to God's voice" and exact opposite of "not following God's ordinances" among many many other translation problems. You can find research done by Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) & Professors Bons and Joosten.

The oldest, extant manuscript of the septuagint tradition is from the 4th century codex sinaiticus which is a Bible manuscript. The older reference to the septuagint comes from the patristic tradition which is the only one prior to the council of Nicaea. There is no one septuagint after that. its called the septuagint tradition. You have rumours that it was from the Ptolemic period, but there is no evidence. There are rumours that there were 70 or 72 scholars who did the translation, but there is no evidence. The stemata study of the Septuagint shows so many grave errors in thus dating as you claim.

You got me wrong Fire. The scientific method requires one to make an hypothesis and then look for data for or against it. One does not collect data that are not relevant. In the present case, the hypothesis is that the name "Mitsrayim" did not exist before 1300 BCE and the Biblical texts tell of Mistrayim, not Egypt. As far as I know, there is no dispute about these facts. The LXX and KJV certainly refer to the place as Mitsrayim. So why should I look into the dating of LXX etc. when there is no dispute about it. If there were an ancient Hebrew or Greek text that used "Egypt" then the question of dating of LXX would arise. So, with due respects, the data you are asking for is not relevant to the hypothesis under study.
Further, you have not responded to the points about the Bible problems; and also to the papers I uploaded. So, I will not be drawn into an issue that is not relavant. Said with respcet, not arrogance. Thx.

 

[rosends]

AS far as I know the first reference to Mitsrayim in the Bible is in the story of Abraham c. 2000 BCE. And, there was no place known as "Mitsrayim" in West Asia at that time. So we need to look at that.

If you want to understand the origin of the name and its identification with Egypt, feel free to read this, as it should explain everything.

Your thesis must start with a particular preconceived notion -- that the current Jews are not the biblical people. This must be your argument because if one works backwards from the current Jews, through Jewish history, one sees a focus on the land of Israel and all the archaeology in that region. One sees all biblical references as centered on that land and that region including the human geography. The only way to separate the text from the people is by saying that the people are not the ones in the text. This (secondarily) also then claims that the text is not divine nor perfect, but subject to human authorship, changes and errors.

As I don't subscribe to your particular driving agenda, I'll simply let you read the scholarship which I linked to and bow out of conversation. Have fun with your project.

 

[River Sea]

You got me wrong Fire. The scientific method requires one to make an hypothesis and then look for data for or against it. One does not collect data that are not relevant. In the present case, the hypothesis is that the name "Mitsrayim" did not exist before 1300 BCE and the Biblical texts tell of Mistrayim, not Egypt. As far as I know, there is no dispute about these facts. The LXX and KJV certainly refer to the place as Mitsrayim. So why should I look into the dating of LXX etc. when there is no dispute about it. If there were an ancient Hebrew or Greek text that used "Egypt" then the question of dating of LXX would arise. So, with due respects, the data you are asking for is not relevant to the hypothesis under study.
Further, you have not responded to the points about the Bible problems; and also to the papers I uploaded. So, I will not be drawn into an issue that is not relavant. Said with respcet, not arrogance.I ma giving the points below for your kind ready reference. Thx.

I give very briefly how some of the major problems of geography of the pre-Exodus Biblical narrative and how they are resolved in the Indus Valley.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please know I'm acting goofy and I realize this is how I really learn is by acting goofy - it makes learning fun., so keep that in mind as you read as I learn this time zone with letters.

Redo of time as I'd forgotten to add AC or is it AD., lets find out and learn
google search says, "First, it is not AC (After Christ), but AD (Anno Domini). Anno Domini, in Medieval Latin from where the term has been borrowed, means “in the year of the Lord”. Jesus Christ is said to be born between 6 BC and 4 BC and he was crucified between 30 AD and 36 AD."

me writing., who is Anno Domini.,

ok so due to I don't know do I write AC or AD., I'll write both so here it goes

There were the dates of the books: actual books.
A grammar of Septuagint Greek : Conybeare, F. C. (Frederick Cornwallis), 1856-1924 AC or AD : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
book called "Grammar of the Septuagint Greek" by Connie Bearer and Stock, written in 1905 AC or AD
Here's date of Moses birth birth at 1525 BCE or could that be BDE if speaking of wonderful Anno Domini., see the D will stand for Donini., drop the A for Anno., but could make sure to have B. include the B., before Domini., however I notice C., so maybe Donini isn't included in the Before C., I'm learning., this strange time stuff., from who's this lucky person who gets this time attach to., is it Christ or Donini or Jesus or who? But what is christ., how come Jesus gets to have christ attach, is it christ time zone., I had light as true time., light lives in all of us., so what does christ mean in all religions including Hindu religion., can we explore that in ties to yadavas hebrews too? Because how come not J., should it be either D or J? Donini or Jesus

Here's date of Moses birth birth at 1525 BCE gets a C not a D., ok.,

please understand this is how I learn., by out loud what the letters time zone., who is Donini., never heard of Donini., and now I'm acting goofy. Donini meet Jesus. Jesus meet Donini., the letter time zone is attach to you both., sorry Jesus no J though., its C., uh?

For the fun of it, you want to see a youtube video of Taftan volcano., hang on, this dude struggle to breath in the gas., lets breath in gas, hold lungs feeeeel that gas feeel it in the lungs, lets feeeeel that gas yes yes yes

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

Iran its your turn., we're going to feel that gas in our lungs., breath in that gas., from this volcano., lets do it , breeeaaaath breeeaaath in that gas hold it, don't let that gas out. breeeeaaath

here's the youtube video of taftan volcano

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I am giving below extract from my paper published in Journal of Indo-Judaic Studies. THis does not relate directly to the Exodus butthese scholars indicate a connection between the Torah and Indus Valley. Thx.
William Jones

Sir Williams Jones was a judge at the Supreme Court at Calcutta (now known as Kolkata) and the founder of the Asiatic Society. He traced the parallels between certain Biblical and Hindu persons in the Presidential Address given to the Society in 1788 titled “On the Chronology of the Hindus.” (Jones, William, The Works of Sir William Jones in Six Volumes, Vol I, G G and J Robinson, London, 1799, page 313). He suggested that Biblical Adam was parallel to Hindu Swayambhu who were both born, in his reckoning, in 4006 BCE; Biblical Noah was parallel to Hindu Vaivaswat who both were born in 2949 BCE; and Biblical Raamah was parallel to Hindu Rama who both were born in 2029 BCE.

He noted that Adam and Swayambhu were the first human beings and that Noah and Vaivaswat lived at the time of the Flood in the two religions. However, he considered Biblical Raamah, son of Cush, to be parallel to Hindu Rama apparently on etymological considerations alone. He did not draw any parallels between the narratives of Raamah and Rama. He also did not discuss the parallels between Cain and Indra; and between Moses and Krishna. Further, he did not discuss the theological parallels between these persons.

T W Doane
Thomas William Doane was a pioneer of free thought. He published his sole literary work Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions in 1882 (Doane, T W, Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions, J. W. Bouton, New York, 1882, The Project Gutenberg eBook of Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions, by Thomas William Doane., Retrieved July 22, 2020). He drew parallels between the narratives of the Bible and the Hindus but did not look at the genealogies, similarities of names and theologies. The non-consideration of genealogies made it possible for him to draw a parallel between narratives at different genealogical positions. Yet he made some fine parallels.

He drew a parallel between Adam and Swayambhu on the strength of both living at a place with four rivers; and Noah and Vaivaswat on the basis of the Deluge. These parallels are same as suggested by us. However, there are numerous cases where he jumps the genealogical position. We give two examples.

He associated the Tree of Life mentioned in the narrative of Adam with the Soma plant mentioned in the narrative of Indra. He ignored the statement in the Hindu texts that Indra lived in the fourth generation from Swayambhu—whom we show was more likely parallel to Adam. Thus there is a gap of four generations between the Tree of Life and the Soma Plant.

Second, he associated Abraham with Harishchandra on the basis of both having offered their son in a failed sacrifice. However, the main narrative of Abraham—going to the south, wife being taken to the Pharaoh, separation from Lot, and expelling Hagar have no parallels in the narrative of Harishchandra. There is no parallel between the names Abraham and Harishchandra either. Thus, while Doane furthered the study of the parallels, the specific parallels outlined by him left much to be desired.

Mircea Eliade
Mircea Eliade was Professor at Universities of Bucharest and Chicago. He published Patterns in Comparative Religion in 1958 and his seminal work Myth and Reality in 1968 (Eliade, Mircea, Patterns in Comparative Religion, Sheed & Ward, New York, 1958; Mircea Eliade, Myth and Reality, Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, 1963). In these books he brought together narratives from across the world and shew that underlying them were certain common patterns. Like Doane, we find that, in the context of Biblical-Hindu parallels, those drawn by him did not often match with the genealogical positions.

He said, for example, that the creation of Eve from Adam’s ribs was parallel to the primeval pair of Yama and Yami described in the Rig Veda. He ignored though that Adam and Eve married while Yama and Yami did not marry. Eliade did not examine the parallel between Adam and Eve, and Swayambhu and Shatarupa. The creation of these primeval couples is associated with splitting of the body and they were the progenitors of the human race in both the religions.

Like Doane, Eliade too associates the Tree of Life described in the Bible with the Soma plant mentioned in the Rig Veda.

Joseph Campbell
Joseph John Campbell was a professor of literature at Sarah Lawrence College in New York. He was influenced by Indian philosopher Jiddu Krshnamurti. He traced the parallels in the Hindu and other world narratives in Oriental Mythology published in 1962 which is part of his trilogy of Primitive-, Oriental- and Occidental Mythology (Campbell, Joseph, The Masks of God: Oriental Mythology, Secker & Warburg, London, 1962).

Unlike Doane and Eliade, Campbell rightly drew parallel between the making of woman from man’s ribs in Genesis and the splitting of the primeval being into husband and wife as described in the Hindu texts.

A number of other examples, however, face a chronological problem. Campbell identified the Tree of Knowledge of the Bible with the pipal tree (ficus religosa) at the time of Buddha. However, the two mentions are separated by three millennia. Campbell did not explore the possible parallel between the Tree of Knowledge or the Tree of Life and the Kalpa-vriksha or “wish-fulling tree” that is mentioned at the time of Swayambhu.

He drew a parallel between the Biblical narrative of the Deluge and the Rig Vedic narrative of Indra killing Vritra and releasing waters that were held up by Vritra. Campbell ignored that Noah would have been mighty happy if the pent up waters had been released and the Deluge abated. The clear parallel to the Biblical Deluge is available in the Fish Incarnation at the time of Vaivaswat which Campbell ignored.

You are picking and choosing people who you think will confirm your bias. But you are not representing them correctly.

For example, Joseph Campbell was all about Jungian Archetypes. He believed that stories had common themes across culture and down through time because we have these species memories. Any commonality between Jewish myth and Hindu myth is due to these archetypes in our subconscious mind. It has absolutely nothing to do with the story spreading from India to the Levant, nor is he saying these are even historical figures. Your literal treatment of his views on myth are so out of whack that I'd be at my computer an hour trying to put things into words that you can understand, and I will probably still fail, because your tendency to take things literally is an unconscious preference on your part that you cannot really control.

 

[firedragon]

There were the dates of the books
A grammar of Septuagint Greek : Conybeare, F. C. (Frederick Cornwallis), 1856-1924 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
book called "Grammar of the Septuagint Greek" by Connie Bearer and Stock, written in 1905

Here's date of Moses birth birth at 1525 BCE

A thought I notice is anyone in any religion can drink from light within them., I notice this., that light teaches and allows all to drink from light and isn't picky with what religion, because we all carry inner 'I' in us, so I think religion just helps people to connect to that inner 'I' that's in them.

What are your thoughts about that?

Those are not dates of actual documents. Anyway, I have asked specifically, whats the document, whats the dating, what's the dating methodology used, but you have not even hinted at a response to that. So I will not engage with this anymore. There is no point whatsoever. Have a great day.

 

[firedragon]

So why should I look into the dating of LXX etc. when there is no dispute about it.

You are wrong. You have not done the research. There is a lot of dispute over it, and I have even given you a synopsis of it.

I don't see this going anywhere.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Further, you have not responded to the points about the Bible problems; and also to the papers I uploaded. So, I will not be drawn into an issue that is not relavant. Said with respcet, not arrogance. Thx.

Dr. Bharat. The point I was trying to make is that when ever you make a statement about a certain document as basis for your thesis, and some claims are made like Ptolemy ordered 72 scholars to come and translate the Tanakh to make the LXX etc etc you should have done the research already about that particular statement.

There are lots of inconsistencies in your thesis's in this thread and you have never responded to any of them even though they were asked many many times. Hope you understand that without addressing them, positing some other arguments is a red herring, and that too is meant with all due respect.

It's impossible to engage with the two gentlemen here pushing a particular book who do that and keep doing that. I can see that you have read a lot on this topic, but that's not making a scholarly thesis. Most of your premises and arguments are based on third party ideas, not primary research or primary documents. It's highly superficial.

Hope you understand.

 

[River Sea]

 

[River Sea]

Dr. Bharat. The point I was trying to make is that when ever you make a statement about a certain document as basis for your thesis, and some claims are made like Ptolemy ordered 72 scholars to come and translate the Tanakh to make the LXX etc etc you should have done the research already about that particular statement.

There are lots of inconsistencies in your thesis's in this thread and you have never responded to any of them even though they were asked many many times. Hope you understand that without addressing them, positing some other arguments is a red herring, and that too is meant with all due respect.

It's impossible to engage with the two gentlemen here pushing a particular book who do that and keep doing that. I can see that you have read a lot on this topic, but that's not making a scholarly thesis. Most of your premises and arguments are based on third party ideas, not primary research or primary documents. It's highly superficial.

Hope you understand.

I started this thread asking are Hebrews Yadavas slaves or farmers? I was asked what I read. I answer what I read.

 

[firedragon]

I was asked what I read.

I didn't ask that. Go back and read what I have always asked.

Have a great day.

 

[River Sea]

Here's an example @Bharat Jhunjhunwala discovering., and what does one do when discovering? Does one ignore or explore?

Then, while visiting the city of Pushkar in Rajasthan in the
eighties, I found four rivers flowing in four directions. I was
reading the Bible and the Quran at the same time. I noticed that
the Bible and the Quran also tell of four rivers flowing from the
Garden of Eden or Paradise. I wondered whether the four rivers
of Pushkar were the four rivers of Garden of Eden or Paradise

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Dr. Bharat. The point I was trying to make is that when ever you make a statement about a certain document as basis for your thesis, and some claims are made like Ptolemy ordered 72 scholars to come and translate the Tanakh to make the LXX etc etc you should have done the research already about that particular statement.

There are lots of inconsistencies in your thesis's in this thread and you have never responded to any of them even though they were asked many many times. Hope you understand that without addressing them, positing some other arguments is a red herring, and that too is meant with all due respect.

It's impossible to engage with the two gentlemen here pushing a particular book who do that and keep doing that. I can see that you have read a lot on this topic, but that's not making a scholarly thesis. Most of your premises and arguments are based on third party ideas, not primary research or primary documents. It's highly superficial.

Hope you understand.

I am willing to respond to anything that is relevant. Please show the relevance of dating of LXX to the issue under discussion. There are so many points I have mentioned that ARE relevant and you have chosen to ignore them. You keep pushing one point about LXX dating that is NOT RELEVANT. So, yes, I don't see this going anywhere, unfortunately.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

You are picking and choosing people who you think will confirm your bias. But you are not representing them correctly.

For example, Joseph Campbell was all about Jungian Archetypes. He believed that stories had common themes across culture and down through time because we have these species memories. Any commonality between Jewish myth and Hindu myth is due to these archetypes in our subconscious mind. It has absolutely nothing to do with the story spreading from India to the Levant, nor is he saying these are even historical figures. Your literal treatment of his views on myth are so out of whack that I'd be at my computer an hour trying to put things into words that you can understand, and I will probably still fail, because your tendency to take things literally is an unconscious preference on your part that you cannot really control.

That Campbell was showing persistence of archetypes does not negate the precise evidences he provides.It is not correct, in my humble view, to assert that "It has absolutely nothing to do with the story spreading from India to the Levant, nor is he saying these are even historical figures." I did not say that Campbell says they spread from Indus Valley. I am only providing 4 scholarly evidence for an ancient connection. You asked for scholarly evidences. So let us please focus on whether there is a scholarly evidence for connection between Torah and Indus Valley.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

If you want to understand the origin of the name and its identification with Egypt, feel free to read this, as it should explain everything.

Your thesis must start with a particular preconceived notion -- that the current Jews are not the biblical people. This must be your argument because if one works backwards from the current Jews, through Jewish history, one sees a focus on the land of Israel and all the archaeology in that region. One sees all biblical references as centered on that land and that region including the human geography. The only way to separate the text from the people is by saying that the people are not the ones in the text. This (secondarily) also then claims that the text is not divine nor perfect, but subject to human authorship, changes and errors.

As I don't subscribe to your particular driving agenda, I'll simply let you read the scholarship which I linked to and bow out of conversation. Have fun with your project.

Thank you for your question. I am challenging the belief that geography of the pre-Exodus Bible matches with that of the Levant. I have no trouble with post-Exodus geography. Please consider the following:

We find that 34 places listed in the endnote are mentioned in both the pre- and post-Exodus narratives of the Bible (Ai, Assyria, Avith, Beersheba, Bethel, Canaan, Dothan, Edom, Egypt, Gerar, Gilead, Goshen, Havilah, Hebron, Jordan, Kadesh, Kiriath Arba, Luz, Mahanaim, Midian, Moab, Moreh, Moriah, Negev, Paran, Penuel, Philistine, Yam Suph (Reed Sea), Seir, Shechem, Shur, Succoth, Zeboim and Zoar). Our hypothesis is that the pre-Exodus events were located in the Indus Valley and the post-Exodus events were located in Yisrael. The mention of these 34 places in both the narratives could be explained by postulating that the Hebrews carried names of these places from the Indus Valley and gave them to certain places in Yisrael that now carry these names. We see that migrants frequently give names of their home locations to their host locations. For example, the names Liverpool, London, and York have been carried from the United Kingdom and given to Liverpool in New South Wales, Australia; London in Ontario, Canada; and New York City in the United States.

In this same manner we suggest that the Hebrews gave the name “Aravalli” of the mountain in the Indus Valley, modified as “Ararat,” to the mountain in Turkey that carries that name today. They gave the name “Meru,” modified as “Moriah,” to the Temple Mount at Jerusalem. They gave the name “Yamuna,” modified as “Jordan,” to the river of Yisrael that carries this name today.

At the same time, 27 places listed in the endnote are mentioned only in the pre-Exodus narratives of the Bible and not mentioned in the post-Exodus narratives (Abel Mizraim, Admah,* Atad, Beer Lahai Roi, Bela, Eder, Elam, Ellasar, Galeed, Gomorrah,* Haran,* Machpelah, Mamre, Pau, Padan Aram,* Peniel, Rehoboth,* River of Egypt,* Shinar,* Siddim, Sin,* Sinai,* Sitnah, Sodom,* Tidal, Ur of the Chaldeans,* Zeboim* and Zin.* Place names marked with asterisk are mentioned in the post-Exodus narrative always alluding to the pre-Exodus events). These include important places like Sodom, Gomorrah, Siddim, and Sinai. This is surprising because the Hebrews travelled frequently through the areas where these places are allegedly located in Yisrael. They would have passed through these places after reaching Yisrael and could not have but noticed the existence of these places. For example, Sodom is allegedly located on the banks of the Dead Sea in Yisrael. The Hebrews passed through this area many times after they reached Yisrael. They would have remembered the existence of Sodom here. But we do not find them mentioning this city in their post-Exodus narratives as a living city. All references to Sodom in the post-Exodus narrative invariably refer to the events that took place here before the Exodus took place.

This leads us to suggest that, unlike the earlier list of 34 places, the migrants did not give the names of these 27 places to places in Yisrael. The absence of mention of these cities in the post-Exodus narratives as living places suggests that these were located at a place other than Yisrael, possibly in the Indus Valley.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That Campbell was showing persistence of archetypes does not negate the precise evidences he provides.It is not correct, in my humble view, to assert that "It has absolutely nothing to do with the story spreading from India to the Levant, nor is he saying these are even historical figures." I did not say that Campbell says they spread from Indus Valley. I am only providing 4 scholarly evidence for an ancient connection. You asked for scholarly evidences. So let us please focus on whether there is a scholarly evidence for connection between Torah and Indus Valley.

I'm just going to leave the discussion. Your position lacks scholarship, and actually goes further to reject what the consensus of the scholars say, and I just have no patience for that.

 

[rosends]

Thank you for your question. I am challenging the belief that geography of the pre-Exodus Bible matches with that of the Levant. I have no trouble with post-Exodus geography. Please consider the following:

We find that 34 places listed in the endnote are mentioned in both the pre- and post-Exodus narratives of the Bible (Ai, Assyria, Avith, Beersheba, Bethel, Canaan, Dothan, Edom, Egypt, Gerar, Gilead, Goshen, Havilah, Hebron, Jordan, Kadesh, Kiriath Arba, Luz, Mahanaim, Midian, Moab, Moreh, Moriah, Negev, Paran, Penuel, Philistine, Yam Suph (Reed Sea), Seir, Shechem, Shur, Succoth, Zeboim and Zoar). Our hypothesis is that the pre-Exodus events were located in the Indus Valley and the post-Exodus events were located in Yisrael. The mention of these 34 places in both the narratives could be explained by postulating that the Hebrews carried names of these places from the Indus Valley and gave them to certain places in Yisrael that now carry these names. We see that migrants frequently give names of their home locations to their host locations. For example, the names Liverpool, London, and York have been carried from the United Kingdom and given to Liverpool in New South Wales, Australia; London in Ontario, Canada; and New York City in the United States.

In this same manner we suggest that the Hebrews gave the name “Aravalli” of the mountain in the Indus Valley, modified as “Ararat,” to the mountain in Turkey that carries that name today. They gave the name “Meru,” modified as “Moriah,” to the Temple Mount at Jerusalem. They gave the name “Yamuna,” modified as “Jordan,” to the river of Yisrael that carries this name today.

At the same time, 27 places listed in the endnote are mentioned only in the pre-Exodus narratives of the Bible and not mentioned in the post-Exodus narratives (Abel Mizraim, Admah,* Atad, Beer Lahai Roi, Bela, Eder, Elam, Ellasar, Galeed, Gomorrah,* Haran,* Machpelah, Mamre, Pau, Padan Aram,* Peniel, Rehoboth,* River of Egypt,* Shinar,* Siddim, Sin,* Sinai,* Sitnah, Sodom,* Tidal, Ur of the Chaldeans,* Zeboim* and Zin.* Place names marked with asterisk are mentioned in the post-Exodus narrative always alluding to the pre-Exodus events). These include important places like Sodom, Gomorrah, Siddim, and Sinai. This is surprising because the Hebrews travelled frequently through the areas where these places are allegedly located in Yisrael. They would have passed through these places after reaching Yisrael and could not have but noticed the existence of these places. For example, Sodom is allegedly located on the banks of the Dead Sea in Yisrael. The Hebrews passed through this area many times after they reached Yisrael. They would have remembered the existence of Sodom here. But we do not find them mentioning this city in their post-Exodus narratives as a living city. All references to Sodom in the post-Exodus narrative invariably refer to the events that took place here before the Exodus took place.

This leads us to suggest that, unlike the earlier list of 34 places, the migrants did not give the names of these 27 places to places in Yisrael. The absence of mention of these cities in the post-Exodus narratives as living places suggests that these were located at a place other than Yisrael, possibly in the Indus Valley.

So I will take the exact inverse. All those places originate in the mideast with later migrants taking the names with them to the Indus Valley and naming after the levantine places. The echoic nature of the names starting with the mideast is a more efficient hypothesis as the names and locations are then internally consistent.

But since your thesis is still geared towards dismantling the current notion of the Jewish identity, I won't pursue it.

 

[firedragon]

I am willing to respond to anything that is relevant. Please show the relevance of dating of LXX to the issue under discussion.

The relevance is your mention of ptolemy, 70 translators, and the LXX without doing the legwork about them. Just claiming "there is no dispute" while not knowing there overwhelming dispute and scholarship around it.

I think both you and your colleague don't have the heart to accept it. So thanks Dr. Bharat for engaging. I shall withdraw from this topic.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

The relevance is your mention of ptolemy, 70 translators, and the LXX without doing the legwork about them. Just claiming "there is no dispute" while not knowing there overwhelming dispute and scholarship around it.

I think both you and your colleague don't have the heart to accept it. So thanks Dr. Bharat for engaging. I shall withdraw from this topic.

Unfortunate. But let me clarify there are many issues regarding LXX. There is no dispute that all mention mitsrayim. Thanks for the conversation.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

So I will take the exact inverse. All those places originate in the mideast with later migrants taking the names with them to the Indus Valley and naming after the levantine places. The echoic nature of the names starting with the mideast is a more efficient hypothesis as the names and locations are then internally consistent.

But since your thesis is still geared towards dismantling the current notion of the Jewish identity, I won't pursue it.

Thanks for the conversation. Maybe there will be another occasion.