Exodus, Merneptah stela and israelites

I sent a message to Kara Cooney to share with me the specifics of the Egyptian records of failures. will post the answer here as soon as i get it....

quote:

---

to which failures and how many of all the events are you referring to? I would need to study more but i'm sure others are asking the same, would be curious to know your references, although i'm aware of the biblical stories...

---

210 years enslaved in Egypt; 150 years of losses before gaining control of Canaan; destruction by Babylon; Destruction by Rome; Destruction in Europe. How's that for starters - these are all documented in the OT - along with a host of other failings. I'd like to see its equivalence in anyone's else's scriptures!

quote:

---

why would the israelites fight a superpower to leave to practically another part of Egypt under the umbrella of freedom? A "nation" that dumb shouldn't be a match for a superpower!

---

They wished to return to thier own land - and escape Egyptian bondage.

quote:

---

Besides that how would you know the israelites "entered" canaan as opposed to being nomads who grew within and already excisted in Canaan?

---

Because Israel was a sovereign nation for a 1000 years till Babylon invaded, and there's a documented record of it. There's also a document which says how they got to Canaan.The questions appear very mythical based.

quote:

---

I sent a message to Kara Cooney to share with me the specifics of the Egyptian records of failures. will post the answer here as soon as i get it....

---

It won't dent anything. The Israel stele is proof of a falsehood, and the Egyptians have no record remaining which admits the Israelites were there or how and why they left: but Israel does have such records, and better believed by concencus.

if this is what it meant, it would say "unlike other nations, there was no king in israel." but it doesn't. it says "before there were kings in israel," which suggests the foreknowledge that some day there would be kings in israel. it seems like you have the comprehension problem. do you think moses just threw around 'before's? do you do standup? really. mathematical texts? yes, and i wasn't discussing esau, but rather kings in israel.

it might be a day's journey...

quote:

---

I'd like to see its equivalence in anyone's else's scriptures!

---

That's exactly the problem! where else would you find something similar, even it if was a witnes' point of view?

quote:

---

They wished to return to thier own land - and escape Egyptian bondage.

---

to me that's not good enough... because there should be records of those years long struggle outside of the bible, during hte period as described in the bible, they dont' necessarely have to be egyptian....but mentioning at least egypt as they were the power to beat! Any other book recommendation?

quote:

---

Because Israel was a sovereign nation for a 1000 years till Babylon invaded, and there's a documented record of it. There's also a document which says how they got to Canaan.

---

care to share those extra-biblical documents?

quote:

---

The questions appear very mythical based.

---

they can also be out of wonder and logic. Every theory is per definition worth studying...

quote:

---

if this is what it meant, it would say "unlike other nations, there was no king in israel." but it doesn't. it says "before there were kings in israel," which suggests the foreknowledge that some day there would be kings in israel.

---

No, it does not say that!Gen 36:31 And these [are] the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.It is precisely qualified by the opening clause in the verse, 'And these [are] the kings that reigned in the land of Edom', posited in the contemporanous tense of 'these are' (at the time); there is no indication here of a future. And there is no other reading than the verse is speaking of the kings in Edom, and at that time there were no kings in Israel. Grammar was introduced in the OT - one is dumb dead without proper textual comprehention - in any field.Also, the entire passage follows the above context. Moses predates the land acquiring, and said nothing anyplace of the future.

quote:

---

it seems like you have the comprehension problem. do you think moses just threw around 'before's?

---

The grammar sucks around here. The 'before' refers to the time factor, namely 'before there reigned any king over the children of Israel'. Like so: 'before there reigned any king over the children of Israel...there were [these are] the kings that reigned in the land of Edom'. The OT says it better than I - obviously.

quote:

---

do you do standup? really. mathematical texts?

---

Sure. The hebrew alphabets are also numerals - change a single one and you derive a different sum quotient of a verse, chapter or the entire books. There is also a mandated law in the OT which says, YOU SHALL NOT ADD OR SUBTRACT ANYTHING FROM THIS BOOK': the numerals are thus accounted here, and a scribe's work can be easily checked for errors. Numerology comes from here too.

quote:

---

That's exactly the problem! where else would you find something similar, even it if was a witnes' point of view?

---

Then you cannot reasonably not accept a document, as a disputation. The egyptians made very little historical writings - those letters are very basic stuff. What has baffled everyone, with no explanation, is that the OT is the first alphabetical books in this timespace, upto the next almost a 1000 years, while Israel emerged late in the scene and was a miniscule nation.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They wished to return to thier own land - and escape Egyptian bondage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

to me that's not good enough... because there should be records of those years long struggle outside of the bible, during hte period as described in the bible, they dont' necessarely have to be egyptian....but mentioning at least egypt as they were the power to beat! Any other book recommendation?

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Israel was a sovereign nation for a 1000 years till Babylon invaded, and there's a documented record of it. There's also a document which says how they got to Canaan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

care to share those extra-biblical documents?

---

One does not need extra biblical texts where there is no disputation. However, Babylon's invasion is well known, with burial places in Babylon (Iraq) of the key figures described in the texts (Eg. Ezekiel). I see your response, 'that is not good enough' without any credibility.

quote:

---

Every theory is per definition worth studying...

---

Always remember, Evolution is a theory - and an unproven one.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Okay,One last go at trying to help you understand this bibical passage.You say: The 'before' refers to the time factor, namely 'before there reigned any king over the children of Israel'.Okay, we are agreed that this is a mention of a time before any King ruled over Israel, since the first king was Saul, then this passge is referring to a time before Saul.Then you say Like so: 'before there reigned any king over the children of Israel...there were [these are] the kings that reigned in the land of Edom'.Okay, that is exactly the same thing, so you understand what the passage is saying.Here is where you are misunderstanding the point. Earlier you say: 'And these [are] the kings that reigned in the land of Edom', posited in the contemporanous tense of 'these are' (at the time);The verse does not have to be contemporaneous, it could have been written at any time at all.The problem you have is highlighted why you make the claim Moses predates the land acquiring, and said nothing anyplace of the future. This is the crux of the problem, you think that Moses wrote this passage, despite the fact that the Bible itself doesn't even claim this.Now, put your brain into neutral and see if you can follow this argument.The passage was written sometime after the first king Saul had ruled, this how textual critics realise that for this passgae to be true, as in a king reigning over Israel, there would already have needed to have been a king of Israel.When you realise that the text was written either during or after the exile, then the grammar is perfectly acceptable.So, some time during the mid first millenium BCE, some unknown scribe(s) wrote this passage, and gave textual critics a clue as to when it was written.Think about your claim that this was written by Moses, if it was then when he says before there reigned any king over the children of Israel. then Moses must have known that there was going to be a time when the Israelites were going to be ruled over by a King. The passage only makes sense if there has been a King of Israel.This passage is simply an anachronism, the Bible is rife with them.Do you understand where we are coming from now?Brian.

All theories are unproven!Brian.

i beg your pardon, yes it does say BEFORE THERE WERE KINGS IN ISRAEL. before is an indication of time. grammar being invented in the OT is a cute joke, but regardless, you still seem unable to read. precisely. at that time there were no kings in israel suggests that there is another time in which there ARE kings in israel. if such a time is to follow, how did moses know? that's exactly what i've been saying for three posts. but again, BEFORE THERE WERE KINGS IN ISRAEL suggests that the writer had knowledge of a future time when there would be kings, otherwise he wouldn't have said BEFORE THERE WERE KINGS IN ISRAEL and instead would have said THERE WERE NO KINGS IN ISRAEL.jeeze. clearly, not only can you not read, but you don't know anything about math. what the fuck do you propose is a "sum quotient"? hehe. so cute. i may be mistaken, but isn't numerology sorcery? also, the bible codes are BULLSHIT. see ages of discussion on this board.

He is the one questioning OUR comprehension skills too! Never has my avatar been so appropriate.Brian.

i'm gonna stab a bitch.

quote:

---

Think about your claim that this was written by Moses, if it was then when he says before there reigned any king over the children of Israel. then Moses must have known that there was going to be a time when the Israelites were going to be ruled over by a King. The passage only makes sense if there has been a King of Israel.

---

The verse has no connectivity with future kings or any futurerism: it is set in the contemporanous tense only. The 'before' relates to the 'these are'! It means only what it says: the nations had kings; but Israel did not; period. There is no reference to any kings of Israel - your reading is adding what is not there, and not required to be legible. These are desperate, contrived straws, and also poor grammar.

quote:

---

The passage was written sometime after the first king Saul had ruled

---

That is the agenda and reason for the contrived reading of it - nothing else. Nor do you have any proof the OT was written after Saul: do try to recall a 1000 names, dobs and dods - 2500 years in the past - and get them to be syncronised with a 1000 other dates in the OT calendar! You are selecting what you loke, if it can be contrived to suit you. It still failed.

quote:

---

i beg your pardon, yes it does say BEFORE THERE WERE KINGS IN ISRAEL. before is an indication of time.

---

And the time is qualified with 'these are' - applicable to when there were kings in Edom.

quote:

---

precisely. at that time there were no kings in israel suggests that there is another time in which there ARE kings in israel. if such a time is to follow, how did moses know?

---

It suggests that Edom had kings but Israel did not; that Israel was a land not ruled by kings, as was Edom.

quote:

---

otherwise he wouldn't have said BEFORE THERE WERE KINGS IN ISRAEL and instead would have said THERE WERE NO KINGS IN ISRAEL.

---

Not with the inclusion of 'these are':31 And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before: 'WHEN NO KINGS RULED OVER Israel. Because Israel stood out, being the only nation which had no kings - unlike Edom and the other nations.Is Seir set in the future too, the immediately preceding verse - or is it contemporanous with that time only?29 These are the chiefs that came of the Horites: the chief of Lotan, the chief of Shobal, the chief of Zibeon, the chief of Anah, 30 the chief of Dishon, the chief of Ezer, the chief of Dishan. These are the chiefs that came of the Horites, according to their chiefs in the land of Seir. {P} 30 the chief of Dishon, the chief of Ezer, the chief of Dishan. These are the chiefs that came of the Horites, according to their chiefs in the land of Seir. {P}

quote:

---

clearly, not only can you not read, but you don't know anything about math. what the fuck do you propose is a "sum quotient"?

---

That's where numerology (Gamatria/Heb), and bible codes come from. Consider the word BAD, which equals 7, if the english alphabets are also numerals (2+1+4). Consider what results if you change any alphabet or remove it? Thus the five books have a total value, as does each verse and para, derived by adding the numbers of the alphabets. When a scribe finishes a copy - it is checked for errors by its numeral sum. The cencus in the desert was done with hebrew alphabets used as numbers.

quote:

---

i may be mistaken, but isn't numerology sorcery? also, the bible codes are BULLSHIT. see ages of discussion on this board.

---

No, numerology is a bone fide instrument in the Hebrew. I doubt it works elsewhere, thus the bible codes of the latin/english bibles being a hoax, contrived to fit an end-point preference. The language has to be interchangeable in alphabets and numerlas, and be originally constructed to cater to numerology. Numerology is not about predicting the future but determining correct interpretation, and comes with strict and definitive rules: if there are more than one interpretation of a word in one verse, it can be verified via another word in another verse with the same context. A deeper numerology is when two unrelated verses have the same numeral total - it can act as an extension or enhancement to its meaning.There is a significance why the OT begins with the 2nd alphabet, B, and that this alphabet is designed like a square with only one side open - the GO FORWARD direction only; it aligns with why we do not know what is precedent of the universe/creation. This too is a form of numerology readings, because it is reflected in other verses, such as GO FORTH AND HAVE DOMINION OF THE UNIVERSE (but not of anything that precedes); and the response given to Moses when he posed a pre-universe question: that only one side of creation is given to man to reign, but none WILL SEE ME (KNOW ME) AND LIVE - meaning there is nothing deficient in our minds, but that this data is barred with a treshold which cannot be broken by man unilaterally; 'IN THE BEGINNING GOD' (opening first verse); etc. So the very first alphabet can be expounded with volumous books.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.