>Okay, but what your book says
>are still mistranslations and in
>one instance blaspheme...

I'll accept "mistranslation", but "blaspheme" is relative...


>Yes it's possible, but the story
>in exodus is speakin specifically
>of the one during teh
>reaignof thutmose I II and
>III, thut I's daughter Hatshepsut,
>and Amenophis II...
>
>As you can see this was
>an era of time, not
>merely the reignof one pharoah
>but the reignof several different
>pharoahs
>

That's still a loooonnng way off from Ramseses' time. Do you have any reason why these scholars may place it in his time & you're dealing w/ centuries later?

Do you, based on your knowledge, have any reason why there might be 2 separate traditions or why the bible combined those traditions? (if you've already answered that, just direct me to the post #)


>Actually, as have been proven, the
>term sheperd people refers to
>the Hebrews, teh hebrews carted
>in their sheep and flocks,
>teh hebrews were sheperds, they
>tended flock there is evidence
>of this throughout exodus and
>genesis as well, if has
>already been stated that these
>same Hyskos were aided by
>hebrews...please read...

Ok, but WHO is saying this? All the references I've seen so far are mentioning the Hyksos, NOT the Hebrews or a Hebrew-Hyksos affiliation.


>No the trnaslation may not be
>off of millenium scholars yet
>teh footnotes are of millenium
>scholars, you are telling me
>about their interpretaions and thei
>interpretations are of a modernized
>ignorant view...

what's "modernized" about taking the information in the text and comparing it to other ancient sources & the information we have now to get a clearer understanding of what these folks & others went thru and what was going on in the world at the time the Bible was written?

sounds like good scholarship to me, not "ignorance"...

like I said, I'm not going to type the entire introduction to this particular Bible here (although there's a quote I'll get to in a sec.), but it explains the scholarship behind those notes.


>None of the names of kings
>were mentioned unless they spoke
>of battles...that is something that
>only a person who understands
>hebrew history and culture would
>know...check the tanach you will
>see...

I meant in the attempt to place the Bible within a historic timeline Thutmose isn't mentioned.

This is the kind of statement I was referring to when I said it seems like you're going from the bible/tanach ~~~> history whereas my perspective is history ~~~> the bible.


>yes it is the issue, first
>you give me a statement
>based on someone's opinion not
>on their research

these footnotes are not coming out of opinion. Biblical scholars and several translators came together to compile the information in this book. there are no theological interpretations or the value judgements I've seen in other versions of the Bible. These are historic/linguistic comparisons made from what information we have available.

now, of course scholars disagree on certain points. they always have. but I would be careful just reducing these points to "opinion".


>Wake up and see for yourself,
>the patterns of people not
>white or black, but people
>on a whole...and then ask
>yourself what is more likely
>true, and tehn after you
>do that, check my list
>of references by books, read

off topic again...

and i'm really waiting on these references...


>teh cheapest of all my books
>is Zecharia Sitchin...why do you
>all still refuse to do
>the neccesary research...it's like you
>are intent on holding an
>opinion

do I need a disclaimer too?

I HAVE NOT STATED MY OPINION.

I have only re-written what was already in front of me. Did I follow up with my own interpretation of what was there? No. I gave you the words of the source, from the source. Something you have yet to do. But I did not comment on/decipher/endorse/interpret ANY of it.

And like I said, what I've read so far on that Sitchin cat is questionable, at best. Not to say he's to be totally and completely discredited, but I'm not willing to uphold his theories either.


>Yes but this is of the
>very recent history, think, we
>are speaking of over 5000
>years ago, do you really
>think that you can find
>a record for every event
>of the past that took
>place over 5000 years ago...

Of course not. Why are you going to such extremes.

Again, as others have said, Egypt is one of the best documented ancient societies we know of. And yes, some of those records were lost, but still...

~~~~
http://omidele.blogspot.com/
http://rahareiki.tumblr.com/
http://seatofbliss.blogspot.com/