>In regards to this, let's be
>sure we know that these
>"new bibles" are interpreting stories
>correctly some scholars are interpreting
>the old testament particularly off
>of diluted english versions or
>from bookslike the talmud and
>pentateuch which have been proven
>to be tampered with...

This bible has been DIRECTLY translated from the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. That's why I bought it. It tells you where the Greek added & the Hebrew omitted and vice versa. It also does not translate terms like "El Shaddai" into "Almighty God" & states where things have been glossed or are unclear.

No, the language is not in the tradition of King James, but it is far from one of the "new" versions or simplified "plain language" versions you're talking about. I'm not going to post the entire introduction, but there are details there about how this bible is translated & what was taken into account.



>the torah much like the Qur'an
>reads in a certain way...teh
>Qur'an reads like a song,
>something that flows into itself,
>much like the torah,
...
>it reads a specific way,
>it has a beat...if anyone
>adds or takes away...it skips
>or loses a beat...
>
>with that said, unless you have
>a hebrew english book, I
>wouldn't put too much faith
>in it...

Granted. But a lot of that "flow", may be poetic license as well. Makes it sound good, but isn't necessarily a reliable historical document. Error is inherent in anything human. But when you compare the bible & other religious texts to specific histories of lands & peoples, it doesn't always pan out. That doesn't have anything to do w/ the religion itself. It's not an attack on Hebrew or something...the Bible is a beautifully written book. Still, history is history.


>>>Thutmose I(1525-1512 BC) a professional soldier
>>>put egypt ona war footing
>>>and launched invasions as far
>>>as the euphrates river- he
>>>feared Israelite disloyalty, we know
>>>this from egyptian inscriptions stating
>>>“when a war shall be
>>>called, they(israelites) shall join our
>>>enemies” and ordered therefore the
>>>killing of all new born
>>>israelite male babies…supported by bothe
>>>exodus 1: 9-16) and the inscriptions
>>>of Thutmose I himself…

The note mentions Rameses II (1290-1224) & claims he is the nameless Pharaoh. So far I have seen no mention of Thutmose or his rule at the time all this may have been going on. Could there be two separate traditions, as the other note said? One around Rameses' time and the other at Thutmose's, as you stated?


>It is simply more than just
>being reduced to categories, you
>and your ancestors yourself were
>reduced to thos categories and
>now not even 600 years
>later some of us still
>consider that intolerable...even so...the hatred
>of the "Sheperd People" was
>more than that as stated
>through exodus as well...it was
>a hatred of teh people,
>the people were considered inferior,
>and dirty...they were considered low
>class human beings...

it's just a statement to give some clarity to the cultural attitudes of the time. nothing personal. and, as others have said, the term "shepherd people" used in the Bible most likely refers to the Hyksos who ruled Egypt for a time.

apparently you agree with what the note says. so would you also agree that the writing of the scriptures may have been colored by this feeling and, as such, took some historical license when dealing w/ their "oppression" in Egypt? Could that be why there are no historical records, as such, of this mass enslavement?


>You say it here yourself, it
>is not surprising that the
>israelites wnated to return to
>their "free" way of life-
>tehy were not free...

I didn't say it. The footnote said it. I am not unequivically agreeing/disagreeing w/ the author in any of these situations. Just typing what's already there.

And, again, it was the Hebrew PERCEPTION that they were not "free". According to the Egyptians, they may have been, hence, the lack of records...


>According to scholars and egyptologists, archaeologists
>and historians the hebrews were
>not even in egypt at
>that time, as well, David
>was already king of Israel...so
>that it is way after
>the timeof teh exodus...
>
>Artifacts, slabs with inscriptions and accounts
>by ancient historians(which were infact
>recorders of their present time)
>all lead scholars and the
>like to the year 1433bc...it
>may be hard for this
>millenium scholars who have diluted
>texts and maybe have never
>left their country to pinpoint
>the date, yet, we have
>scholars from all over the
>world, including germany, holland, greece,
>egypt, israel, america and france
>who have done this study...

Again, this particular Bible isn't going off of "millenium" scholars, but a direct translation.

But, as I said, I have a lot more research/reading to do. I'm not really arguing any of these points, just offering a differing point of view.


>yes this may have been true
>at that time, but I
>urge you to read what
>I have written again...and see
>that teh hebrews were not
>put into forced labor during
>the time that Moses was
>born which was 1513 BC,
>they were not put into
>that forced labor until Moses
>was between teh ages of
>35 and 45 during the
>times of thutmose III.....thutmose the
>I was the one who
>according to his own inscriptions
>declared to kill all the
>first borns...

again, I didn't write these notes. But it seems that if Thutmose had something to do w/ this, his name would be somewhere & so far it isn't.


>these inscriptions were in thutmose's own
>words..with his royal seals

Have any pictures? Sources that might have pictures of this inscription? Or do you know which monument it was on? What document?

>
>It
>>seems to boil down to
>>a matter of perspective...the Hebrews
>>my have seen their status
>>in Egypt as negative and
>>wrote their story accordingly.
>
>So if blacks in America see
>themselves in an oppressed situation
>does it make it true
>or not?

You're getting opinionated again....that's not the issue.

And again, everyone is asking, "where are the Egyptian records"??? Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt w/ Thutmose w/ the killing of the first borns, that STILL doesn't explain why there are NO records of this mass enslavement.

We KNOW thousands of Africans were slaves. We have slave ship records and depictions, bills of sale. Wills. Advertisements for runaways. We have pamphlets like "How to Make a Slave" and the writings of Thomas Jefferson and others calling Blacks less than human, inferior, etc.



>
>To you its true because you
>are alive in this time,
>yet to the future who
>knew not of us, knew
>not of our time...with all
>this info out there, they
>probably would be saying the
>same things about us...

Records speak for themselves.

Where there are no records, there is only speculation...


>we think that
>black people would not enslave
>other black people...why is that?

Oh great, now you're going there.

No one has said no Egyptian didn't have slaves. No one said Africans didn't enslave/sell their own.

We're asking for PROOF the Hebrews endured this neverending battle w/ the Egyptians.

No one is bringing Afrocentrism into this either. People have been comparing what we know of history to the biblical retelling of that history.


>It's not about black and white
>and it is true it
>is not about what white
>american men say our history
>was or the history of
>egypt or israel say...

uh...u made it about that, not me. this is WAY off topic


>I'll post my references, I have
>over twelve pages....do you all
>think that you will really
>let it help you to
>see the events of history
>clearer?

Again, I didn't write any of those notes. I stated ONE inference I made from them. I just wanted to see where your information stood w/ that. The rest is all you...

And Solarus has been asking for sources from jump...