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

[Aupmanyav]

Braman is the stuff of the universe, you, me, everything in the universe is Brahman, call it by whatever name. 'Physical energy' is an option.

 

[River Sea]

Many yadav kings including krishna.

So Krishna was a king Yadavas, did Kings fight too or only Yadavas had their fighters? So Moses also would be a Yadavas King too, however through the years was Moses seen as King., or only named a prophet? How did language affect this area of Moses 'word King' and 'word Prophet' compared to Krishna?
What usual relations were Kings with Pharaohs in Indus Valley? Moses was adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter. Exodus 2:10 When the child had grown older, she brought him to Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. She named him Moses and explained, “I drew him out of the water.”
So during the time Yadavas were fighters, were they also farmers who also practiced the profession of cattle rearing?

 

[River Sea]

Dr. Bharat. My point is, prior to hermeneutics of the Tanakh, the foundation has to be established. Because this is a historicity issue that is being discussed. The reason the history of the Septuagint is related is because you quote it. And you have spoken about it, linking it to ptolemy, and the so called 70 or 72, but what's the historicity of it all? It's not related to the question where Moses was. The authenticity of the Septuagint is important because you speak about it. Hope you understand. No disrespect intended. Jewish scholars have always held the view that the history of the septuagint is concocted. In scholarship of that depth, one must be concerned about the authenticity of these historical claims.

I am no scholar of the Egyptian connection to Exodus or the Islamic discourse. And I have not done that type of extensive research. But off the top of my head, how I would connect Moses to Egypt would be to associate Moses with Mitsrayim in exodus where the people complain to him asking him why he brought them from Misrayim to die in the desert. Now don't think for a second that I have any expertise in the Hebrew language just because I am quoting these words.

So in this case, what is your real thesis? Is Misrayim another place? I have not read your book so I ask you.

In Arabic, Egypt is referred to with the same syllables as in Hebrew. But the difference is it does not use the pluralis. Meem, Sadh, Ra. Misra. The usage is Mamnooa min al Sarf which means it does not have it can relate to other nouns in a sentence only in two particular ways. This makes it a proper noun. And Moses and his brother are said to establish their people in Egypt or Misra. The Qur'an makes a difference between Joseph's time and Moses's time calling the ruler Malik and then as Firawn when it comes to Moses. The Ali Firawna, Pharaoh's followers who tried to kill Moses's followers were associated together, while the distinction between Malik and Firawn is historically correct. That suggests that Moses was in Egypt.

Thus, I would like to know what your thesis is. Was Misra not in Egypt? Was another king in another geographical area called pharaoh? Or is there a nuance in this story that I am missing? If that is the case, Pharaoh is directly associated with "kingship" and "Egypt" or Misra in the same verse in the Qur'an.

Since you seem to be proposing a kind of perennial philosophy and had quoted the Qur'an as well, I am bringing both books to the table. And I would like to hear your thoughts.

It's an honour Dr. Bharat.

Hi firedragon., did you see two PDF files yet
from Bharat
on Page 4 scroll down to message #77 and message #80

I know in the past I over did it repeating so now I'm trying a different way referencing.
I know you're looking forward for Bharat to respond. I'm learning too.
Hey wait, let me show you this.

 

[firedragon]

Hi firedragon., did you see two PDF files yet
from Bharat
on Page 4 scroll down to message #77 and message #80

I know in the past I over did it repeating so now I'm trying a different way referencing.
I know you're looking forward for Bharat to respond. I'm learning too.
Hey wait, let me show you this. View attachment 65261

Thanks River Sea.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

But it's not the same geography. Egypt is no where near India. I'm not sure why you are so emotionally invested in this nonsense.

Biblical scholars though Copernicus was nonsense. So, please, let us not go by traditions. "Research" would have no meaning if one was bound by traditions. So, I would request you to consider the many problems with the conventional view: No four rivers, no flood of 150 days, no towers (height>base), no land between 2 rivers, no parting at Yam Suf 1, NO location of Yam Suf 2, No reason to go back to Aquaba at Yam Suf 3, No volacano... the list goes on and on. So, I request you to please respond to these papers I am uploading; instead of merely sayign "nonsense." Knowledge of Hebrew is great. Maybe you can help me interpret some verses as the time comes. Thx.

But it's not the same geography. Egypt is no where near India. I'm not sure why you are so emotionally invested in this nonsense.

The devout thought that Copernicus was nonsense. "Research" means re-searching from new angles. So, 2000 years of belief is no proof that the belief is correct. I request you to please respond to these two papers rather. Let us move forward in discovering the truth. I am willing to withdraw if you can show me chinks in my armour, so to say. Look forward. Thx.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hey wait, let me show you this. View attachment 65261

Dr. Bharat should say "Yadavas arrived in Yisrael' and not 'Hebrews arrived in Yisrael'. Good to know that Mt. Sinai (Taftan) is in Siestan, Iran.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Dr. Bharat. My point is, prior to hermeneutics of the Tanakh, the foundation has to be established. Because this is a historicity issue that is being discussed. The reason the history of the Septuagint is related is because you quote it. And you have spoken about it, linking it to ptolemy, and the so called 70 or 72, but what's the historicity of it all? It's not related to the question where Moses was. The authenticity of the Septuagint is important because you speak about it. Hope you understand. No disrespect intended. Jewish scholars have always held the view that the history of the septuagint is concocted. In scholarship of that depth, one must be concerned about the authenticity of these historical claims.

I am no scholar of the Egyptian connection to Exodus or the Islamic discourse. And I have not done that type of extensive research. But off the top of my head, how I would connect Moses to Egypt would be to associate Moses with Mitsrayim in exodus where the people complain to him asking him why he brought them from Misrayim to die in the desert. Now don't think for a second that I have any expertise in the Hebrew language just because I am quoting these words.

So in this case, what is your real thesis? Is Misrayim another place? I have not read your book so I ask you.

In Arabic, Egypt is referred to with the same syllables as in Hebrew. But the difference is it does not use the pluralis. Meem, Sadh, Ra. Misra. The usage is Mamnooa min al Sarf which means it does not have it can relate to other nouns in a sentence only in two particular ways. This makes it a proper noun. And Moses and his brother are said to establish their people in Egypt or Misra. The Qur'an makes a difference between Joseph's time and Moses's time calling the ruler Malik and then as Firawn when it comes to Moses. The Ali Firawna, Pharaoh's followers who tried to kill Moses's followers were associated together, while the distinction between Malik and Firawn is historically correct. That suggests that Moses was in Egypt.

Thus, I would like to know what your thesis is. Was Misra not in Egypt? Was another king in another geographical area called pharaoh? Or is there a nuance in this story that I am missing? If that is the case, Pharaoh is directly associated with "kingship" and "Egypt" or Misra in the same verse in the Qur'an.

Since you seem to be proposing a kind of perennial philosophy and had quoted the Qur'an as well, I am bringing both books to the table. And I would like to hear your thoughts.

It's an honour Dr. Bharat.

Thank you for your kind words. To begin with the Quran, 28:44 says Moses was not in the west when commissioned. That rules out Egypt.
Now my thesis. I propose that the line from Adam to Moses lived in the Indus Valley. Moses led the Exodus of 40 years from Indus to Israel.
I give very briefly how some of the major problems of geography of the pre-Exodus Biblical narrative and how they are resovled in the Indus Valley.
Now my thesis. I propose that the line from Adam to Moses lived in the Indus Valley. Moses led the Exodus of 40 years from Indus to Israel.

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.

These are just the main points. I am happy to provide more evidence on each point. Thanks for your kind conversation.

 

[firedragon]

Thank you for your kind words. To begin with the Quran, 28:44 says Moses was not in the west when commissioned.

Hmm. Dr. Bharat. Let me make it clear. The verse says that "you were not in the western side" addressing the reader, not Moses. Also you saying that it's referring to what we today think of as west is not relevant. Think of both of these statements.

Now my thesis. I propose that the line from Adam to Moses lived in the Indus Valley.

ON what basis do you propose that? Adam was the first human. Every human being on earth has to be from his lineage by hook or crook. So how do you draw a like from Adam to Moses and the Indus while there were human beings living in all corners of the earth?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Biblical scholars though Copernicus was nonsense. So, please, let us not go by traditions. .

It has nothing to do with any traditions. It has to do with speaking Hebrew.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

It has nothing to do with any traditions. It has to do with speaking Hebrew.

It has nothing to do with any traditions. It has to do with speaking Hebrew.

Indigo. I am not into adversarial and cryptic talk. Pl write if u have any argument against exodus from the Indus valley.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Hmm. Dr. Bharat. Let me make it clear. The verse says that "you were not in the western side" addressing the reader, not Moses. Also you saying that it's referring to what we today think of as west is not relevant. Think of both of these statement]

There is no .You. in the text. Even otherwise mohammad was not in existence then. Plain reading is "were not ....". There was no habitation in arabia at 1500 bce. So it could not be said to Arabs.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Where did Cain and seth get wives if there were no other persons?

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

It has nothing to do with any traditions. It has to do with speaking Hebrew.

I am happy to be your student, but not yr enemy.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Indigo. I am not into adversarial and cryptic talk. Pl write if u have any argument against exodus from the Indus valley.

The word mitzraim translates as Egypt. Those who speak Hebrew know that Mitraim is Egypt. You cannot get around this. Your assertion is absolutely ridiculous. Further, it appears that the sole purpose of this thread is to promote a completely nonsensical book. I'm done talking with you. Don't pretend to be a scholar when you make ridiculous claims that the scholarly community just laugh at.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I am happy to be your student, but not yr enemy.

Don't take this so personally. It's only a forum. I don't think of you as an enemy.

 

[firedragon]

There is no .You. in the text.

What does "Kuntha" mean if it't not "you"?

Even otherwise mohammad was not in existence then.

There is enough evidence for Muhammed's historicity, but it's not relevant to this conversation. We can address that separately if you wish on another thread.

Plain reading is "were not ....".

KUntha means "you were" when in combination with the sentence. Kuntha is Faala Maadh ...... fee mahala rafoo asma.

It's "You Were". Not "Were not". The word prior which is "Wamaa" is the negation. So "Wamaa Kuntha" means "You were not".

Said with all due respect.

There was no habitation in arabia at 1500 bce. So it could not be said to Arabs.

I didn't say it was said to the Arabs. The Qur'an does not always address the Arabs. It depends on who the subject is.

 

[firedragon]

The word mitzraim translates as Egypt. Those who speak Hebrew know that Mitraim is Egypt.

It's the same in Arabic. It's Misra". The "im" is not there in arabic.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

The word mitzraim translates as Egypt. Those who speak Hebrew know that Mitraim is Egypt. You cannot get around this. Your assertion is absolutely ridiculous. Further, it appears that the sole purpose of this thread is to promote a completely nonsensical book. I'm done talking with you. Don't pretend to be a scholar when you make ridiculous claims that the scholarly community just laugh at.

Don't put too much faith on scholars. For example wellhausen debunked the scholarly view of mosaic authorship of Torah. Instead of shouting nonsense hundred times better apply your mind and respond to the post one time. Friendly suggestion. Show me one scholar who can show how mitsrayim etymolgically translates as egypt. It is written as egypt by convention not translation.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Don't put too much faith on scholars. .

When scholars are in agreement, the only logical thing is to trust them.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It is written as egypt by convention not translation.

Maybe if you say this a hundred times it will come true.