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

[firedragon]

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.

Did you actually refer to Welhausen? Is that a scholar any Jew will ever refer to in this kind of discussion?

Do you understand that Welhausen is breaking the foundations of your own book? And it breaks the foundations of the Jews.

I think you just dropped a name for shock effect. That, is beneath any author to do that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

Dr. Bharat means that when the Yadavas started from India, they spoke Sanskrit. They picked up Hebrew only after reaching Yisrael.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

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



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.



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.



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.

Verse: And you, were not on the western side when We revealed to Moses the command, and you were not among the witnesses. 28:44

My Arabic scholar friend Saleem has told me that

Kunta-Kuntum-Kuntu is used in 2nd person singular, dual and multiple.

Kana-Kana-Kanu is used in 3rd person singular, dual and multiple.

Although “Kunta” is used in 2nd person singular but it does not make sense here. When Mohammad himself did not exist, where would be the question of his being on the west- or east side? Or being a witness as said in the second instance. I do not know how to solve this riddle. I can speculate though.

Perhaps, therefore, “kunta” is used here as “believers in Allah” or some variant like that (I do not know). The area of Central Arabia was not inhabited at c. 1500 BCE. The command to move on Exodus was revealed in the Indus Valley as per my study. The verse could possibly be understood as:

And you [believers in Allah], were not on the western side [that is, Arabia] when We revealed to Moses the command [in the Indus Valley], and you [believers in Allah] were not among the witnesses. 28:44.

I am open to other interpretations. Thanks for this question.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Did you actually refer to Welhausen? Is that a scholar any Jew will ever refer to in this kind of discussion?

Do you understand that Welhausen is breaking the foundations of your own book? And it breaks the foundations of the Jews.

I think you just dropped a name for shock effect. That, is beneath any author to do that.

I referred to Wellhausen honestly. I did not know that we was hated by the Jews. I do not see how he breaks my foundations. I thought he was the one who first delineated the four sources of the Torah and was much respected. I will keep this in mind in future. Thx.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Oldest footprints in Saudi Arabia reveal intriguing step in early human migration
Science | AAAS
An Nafud - Wikipedia

"One day about 120,000 years ago, a few humans wandered along the shore of an ancient lake in what is now the Nefud Desert in Saudi Arabia. They may have paused for a drink of fresh water or to track herds of elephants, wild asses, and camels that were trampling the mudflats. Within hours of passing through, the humans' and animals' footprints dried out and eventually fossilized."

"Researchers conducting archaeological fieldwork in the Nefud Desert of Saudi Arabia have discovered a fossilised finger bone of an early member of Homo sapiens. The discovery is the oldest directly dated Homo sapiens fossil outside of Africa and the immediately adjacent Levant, and indicates that early dispersals into Eurasia were more expansive than previously thought."
Finger discovery points to early human dispersals

 

[firedragon]

Verse: And you, were not on the western side when We revealed to Moses the command, and you were not among the witnesses. 28:44

My Arabic scholar friend Saleem has told me that

Kunta-Kuntum-Kuntu is used in 2nd person singular, dual and multiple.

Kana-Kana-Kanu is used in 3rd person singular, dual and multiple.

Although “Kunta” is used in 2nd person singular but it does not make sense here. When Mohammad himself did not exist, where would be the question of his being on the west- or east side? Or being a witness as said in the second instance. I do not know how to solve this riddle. I can speculate though.

Perhaps, therefore, “kunta” is used here as “believers in Allah” or some variant like that (I do not know). The area of Central Arabia was not inhabited at c. 1500 BCE. The command to move on Exodus was revealed in the Indus Valley as per my study. The verse could possibly be understood as:

And you [believers in Allah], were not on the western side [that is, Arabia] when We revealed to Moses the command [in the Indus Valley], and you [believers in Allah] were not among the witnesses. 28:44.

I am open to other interpretations. Thanks for this question.

Shall I give you the exact arabic grammatical term for that word? I already gave it to you. But here you go again. It's Faala Maadh waaltha dhameerun mathsala fee mahala rafaa asmi.

What do you mean kana Kanu? What are you talking about? That's just past and plural.

You made an absolutely false claim that it does not say "you were". If someone advised you, find a better advisor.

You have just made an arbitrary exegesis of the verse without even having basic knowledge of the language. That's fine I suppose but at least you should have the epistemic humility.

You can't just enter some words of your choice within brackets to distort it to mean what you want it to mean. That's begging the question.

 

[firedragon]

I referred to Wellhausen honestly. I did not know that we was hated by the Jews. I do not see how he breaks my foundations. I thought he was the one who first delineated the four sources of the Torah and was much respected. I will keep this in mind in future. Thx.

If you wish, I will tell you how he breaks down your own foundations. No problem.

First, I did not tell you that Jews hate Welhausen. They don't agree with him. That does not mean hate. I am surprised that you would even drop his name if you don't know his thesis.

Welhausens source criticism brings a different paradigm for the Jews. Of course. It breaks down their belief in the Mosaic tradition. The Y source (J source) and the Elohists (I try not to pronounce their God's name) make a source basis for God's name. That falsifies God has a name. And the D will make it a new source, not mosaic. P source makes it strategic, not revelation.

Why would this break down your premises? Because it takes the authenticity out of the writings. Each source have their own agenda. So how would you authenticate it as true, false, genuine, historic or even apt to the time period in question? This completely breaks down your readings from the Pentateuch which is where you take your sources from.

I actually don't know why you dropped Welhausens name in this thread. It's irrelevant to that post you replied to, and it's irrelevant to this thread, it's also irrelevant to the Jews because they will never take his scholarship for linguistics, hermeneutics or interpretation. One main reason would be because Welhausen does not engage in any of these things.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

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

I think it is time to let this conversation rest. I am not in the awe of scholars. God has given us mind. We must use it instead of pawning it to the scholars. What will you do when scholars disagree. Whom will u follow? That would involve application of mind. And please know that Aristotle, if u consider him to be a scholar, said the Jews came from india.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Shall I give you the exact arabic grammatical term for that word? I already gave it to you. But here you go again. It's Faala Maadh waaltha dhameerun mathsala fee mahala rafaa asmi.

What do you mean kana Kanu? What are you talking about? That's just past and plural.

You made an absolutely false claim that it does not say "you were". If someone advised you, find a better advisor.

You have just made an arbitrary exegesis of the verse without even having basic knowledge of the language. That's fine I suppose but at least you should have the epistemic humility.

You can't just enter some words of your choice within brackets to distort it to mean what you want it to mean. That's begging the question.

No arrogance here on my part. I appreciate your question and I have learnt about this verse. But you have not responded on my point that Mohammad was not in existence hence the statement could not be read in the second person. I made the exegesis after accepting your point.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

If you wish, I will tell you how he breaks down your own foundations. No problem.

First, I did not tell you that Jews hate Welhausen. They don't agree with him. That does not mean hate. I am surprised that you would even drop his name if you don't know his thesis.

Welhausens source criticism brings a different paradigm for the Jews. Of course. It breaks down their belief in the Mosaic tradition. The Y source (J source) and the Elohists (I try not to pronounce their God's name) make a source basis for God's name. That falsifies God has a name. And the D will make it a new source, not mosaic. P source makes it strategic, not revelation.

Why would this break down your premises? Because it takes the authenticity out of the writings. Each source have their own agenda. So how would you authenticate it as true, false, genuine, historic or even apt to the time period in question? This completely breaks down your readings from the Pentateuch which is where you take your sources from.

I actually don't know why you dropped Welhausens name in this thread. It's irrelevant to that post you replied to, and it's irrelevant to this thread, it's also irrelevant to the Jews because they will never take his scholarship for linguistics, hermeneutics or interpretation. One main reason would be because Welhausen does not engage in any of these things.

I understand this much of wellhausen. My response is that mosaic source was carried orally in multiple traditions and composed in 1st m bce. Wellhausen only tells of scribing, not composition. His hypothesis is mainstream I believe.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

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

Yes it is misr. But this name is attested only from 1300 bce that too not in Egyptian but I think in one solitary Akkadian text. It did not exist in c. 1900 be when abraham went to mitsrayim.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Oldest footprints in Saudi Arabia reveal intriguing step in early human migration
Science | AAAS
An Nafud - Wikipedia

"One day about 120,000 years ago, a few humans wandered along the shore of an ancient lake in what is now the Nefud Desert in Saudi Arabia. They may have paused for a drink of fresh water or to track herds of elephants, wild asses, and camels that were trampling the mudflats. Within hours of passing through, the humans' and animals' footprints dried out and eventually fossilized."

"Researchers conducting archaeological fieldwork in the Nefud Desert of Saudi Arabia have discovered a fossilised finger bone of an early member of Homo sapiens. The discovery is the oldest directly dated Homo sapiens fossil outside of Africa and the immediately adjacent Levant, and indicates that early dispersals into Eurasia were more expansive than previously thought."
Finger discovery points to early human dispersals

I don't see the relevance. Pl explain.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Dr. Bharat means that when the Yadavas started from India, they spoke Sanskrit. They picked up Hebrew only after reaching Yisrael.

No. Hebrew is a minor modification of the Indus script. Sanskrit evolved separately from the same Indus script.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I am not in the awe of scholars. God has given us mind.

It is the arrogant mark of this generation to think that their own opinions are superior to that of the experts even when the experts are in agreement.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No. Hebrew is a minor modification of the Indus script. Sanskrit evolved separately from the same Indus script.

Ah, I understand. Indus valley language had two daughters, Hebrew and Sanskrit. Nice research. Don't know why Govrnment of India has not awarded you 'Padma Vibhushan'.

I don't see the relevance. Pl explain.

The relevance is that Arabia had humans as early as 120,000 years ago. Climate changed and Arabia became arid. But I do not think humans and animals ever ceased to exist in Arabia. Arabia has many geographical regions. Not that whole of it is forbidding desert. And humans and animals do live even in forbidding deserts, like Namib and Atacama.
Arabian Peninsula - Wikipedia
Atacama Desert - Wikipedia
Namib - Wikipedia

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Ah, I understand. Indus valley language had two daughters, Hebrew and Sanskrit. Nice research. Don't know why Govrnment of India has not awarded you 'Padma Vibhushan'.
The relevance is that Arabia had humans as early as 120,000 years ago. Climate changed and Arabia became arid. But I do not think humans and animals ever ceased to exist in Arabia. Arabia has many geographical regions. Not that whole of it is forbidding desert. And humans and animals do live even in forbidding deserts, like Namib and Atacama.
Arabian Peninsula - Wikipedia
Atacama Desert - Wikipedia
Namib - Wikipedia

Hebrew is a semitic language, related to i.e. Arabic and Aramaic and ancient Canaanite. Sanskrit on the other hand is an indo-european language, unrelated to hebrew.

"Unfortunately, no bilingual inscriptions have yet been found to allow the Indus Script to be compared to a known writing system. ... the Indus Script has not been deciphered yet"
Indus Script

 

[firedragon]

No arrogance here on my part. I appreciate your question and I have learnt about this verse. But you have not responded on my point that Mohammad was not in existence hence the statement could not be read in the second person. I made the exegesis after accepting your point.

There is no indication it is addressing the prophet Muhammed.

I understand this much of wellhausen. My response is that mosaic source was carried orally in multiple traditions and composed in 1st m bce. Wellhausen only tells of scribing, not composition. His hypothesis is mainstream I believe.

Dr. Bharat. I think it's better to drop Welhausen.

Yes it is misr. But this name is attested only from 1300 bce that too not in Egyptian but I think in one solitary Akkadian text. It did not exist in c. 1900 be when abraham went to mitsrayim.

The thing is this, you are quoting wellhausen (not quoting but mentioning his name), and then you are making statements from the Bible like "WHEN Abraham went to Mizraim" as if that really is historical. That's a contradiction. In that case you have to claim the source of those particular verses you pick are historically established, or that they are God's words, or that welhausens criticism is just rubbish. you have to pick a side.

Everyone knows that there were many early mentions of the name mizraim associated with Egypt. I am in no way propagating that the exodus definitely happened in Egypt at all, but your association is quite flawed because lets say Abraham lived before the Akkadian text, how do you know when Abraham existed? If your research is that extensive, why do you trust the Biblical dates and timelines? Do you have any historical evidence that Abraham existed in that time? Do you really believe Adam existed 6000 years ago? The first man? Because this timeline is including Adam. And if you are invalidating the Akkadian text that was written over a millennium before the new age, why do you quote the Qur'an which is less than half the age of the Akkadian writings?

Also, who wrote those texts in the Bible? Was it truly Moses's direct tradition? Did Moses or even Abraham for that matter really call Egypt by the name Mizraim. Maybe their language was a little different. What matters is what the writer meant when he was writing.

Don't you think?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hebrew is a semitic language, related to i.e. Arabic and Aramaic and ancient Canaanite. Sanskrit on the other hand is an indo-european language, unrelated to hebrew.

I know that they are poles apart (apart from the word Mal'akh ha-Maweth, Malak al-Mawt, Mrityu). But Dr. Bharat has the capacity and research to bring the poles together.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I know that they are poles apart (apart from the word Mal'akh ha-Maweth, Malak al-Mawt, Mrityu). But Dr. Bharat has the capacity and research to bring the poles together.

The so-called Dr Bharat says that expert opinions are worthless, even when they are a consensus. That's not someone I'm going to pay much attention to.

As for me, I go with whatever the consensus of scholars is, and I respect those who do the same.

 

[River Sea]

Germanic westward - Sanskrit eastward

Wants some Pie, what kind of pie do you have, oh some Proto-Indo European pie.

Yum yum delicious pie