• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Egyptian exodus proof or slavery?

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
You are factually correct. But that seems to place one self proclamation above the other self proclamation. How do we solve this?

Easy. One has to be logical about what they consider be the best method for determining historical facts. For example.
  1. There is a method that historians use called a Convergence of Facts.
  2. Use of 1st hand sources, as they originally existed.
  3. Use of the "Best evidence rule" - In the American legal system, the best evidence rule only applies when a party seeks to prove the contents of the document sought to be admitted as evidence. The best evidence rule provides that the original documents must be provided as evidence, unless the original is lost, destroyed, or otherwise unobtainable.
  4. Independence of information. I.e. does said information rely on information of another nature to exist or it is able to stand on its own.
  5. Analysis of ancient sources that have regional relevance to the information in question. Also, application of the best evidence rule.
  6. Use of historically modified scientific method to determine what is historically relevant.
  7. Lastly, not to make assumptions about the information. Lay it all on table and let the reliability of each claim to stand on its own merit, historically and factually.
The following may help:

Convergence of Evidence: Meaning & Importance | Study.com

HISTORICAL QUESTIONS AND FACTS

Definition of CONSILIENCE

A Convergence of Evidence: The Key to Historical Proof
 
Last edited:

Bharat Jhunjhunwala

TruthPrevails
Easy. One has to be logical about what they consider be the best method for determining historical facts. For example.
  1. There is a method that historians use called a Convergence of Facts.
  2. Use of 1st hand sources, as they originally existed.
  3. Use of the "Best evidence rule" - In the American legal system, the best evidence rule only applies when a party seeks to prove the contents of the document sought to be admitted as evidence. The best evidence rule provides that the original documents must be provided as evidence, unless the original is lost, destroyed, or otherwise unobtainable.
  4. Independence of information. I.e. does said information rely on information of another nature to exist or it is able to stand on its own.
  5. Analysis of ancient sources that have regional relevance to the information in question. Also, application of the best evidence rule.
  6. Use of historically modified scientific method to determine what is historically relevant.
  7. Lastly, not to make assumptions about the information. Lay it all on table and let the reliability of each claim to stand on its own merit, historically and factually.
The following may help:

Convergence of Evidence: Meaning & Importance | Study.com

HISTORICAL QUESTIONS AND FACTS

Definition of CONSILIENCE

A Convergence of Evidence: The Key to Historical Proof
Thanks. You have sent on a spin beyond my capacity. Can u simply explain how to decide whether a text is true?
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Thanks. You have sent on a spin beyond my capacity. Can u simply explain how to decide whether a text is true?

It depends on what you are trying to prove "true" about the text. If you are trying to prove it to be "historically factual" there are a group of methods that are often called a "convergence of facts." If you are trying to prove a text to be "philosophically factual" that is something else altogether.

Which of the two are you looking to deal with?
 
Last edited:

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Thanks. You have sent on a spin beyond my capacity. Can u simply explain how to decide whether a text is true?

Here is another way to look at it:

Let's use this as an example. I travel to India and while digging in a site I find the following.

or-4481-f-17v.jpg


How do I determine what it is, what it says, who wrote it, and if what it states is historically accurate?

Let's say I don't know the script it is written in and I don't know the local languages spoken in the area I found it in. How do I go about trying to understand what is written here?
 

Bharat Jhunjhunwala

TruthPrevails
convergence of facts."
That is what I am trying to do. Would this be convergence?

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.

The sixth name is that of Biblical Noah and his Hindu parallel Vaivaswat Manu. “Noah” is written as “Noach” which is then also written as “Manowach.” “Manowach” and “Manu” both have the same two consonants “M” and “N.” Therefore, we consider the name Noach or Manu to be parallel to Manu.

No tower. Ziggurats are not towers since width > height.

I would consider making a new thread on this.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
That is what I am trying to do. Would this be convergence?

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.

The sixth name is that of Biblical Noah and his Hindu parallel Vaivaswat Manu. “Noah” is written as “Noach” which is then also written as “Manowach.” “Manowach” and “Manu” both have the same two consonants “M” and “N.” Therefore, we consider the name Noach or Manu to be parallel to Manu.

No tower. Ziggurats are not towers since width > height.

I would consider making a new thread on this.

No. A convergence of facts works like this.

upload_2022-10-23_8-5-13.png


upload_2022-10-23_8-5-39.png


upload_2022-10-23_8-6-8.png


upload_2022-10-23_8-6-51.png


upload_2022-10-23_8-7-14.png

upload_2022-10-23_8-7-34.png


upload_2022-10-23_8-7-56.png
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
For the sake of anyone who may be reading this, when it comes to how "trained historians" analyze historical information one doesn't assume that the information is true just because it is written. One also doesn't try to invent a way for the information to be if there is found to a lack of historical inforamtion to explain the source material in a particular way.

If you look at what I posted below. This explains how professional research of history works.

Explaination of a convergence of facts.
 

Bharat Jhunjhunwala

TruthPrevails
I have seen your page regarding convergence of facts. I am attaching Annexure 3 from my book regarding the evidences for Exodus from the Indus Valley. I hope this will match with your expectations. I am happy to provide responses to any weakness that you may see. Thanks
 

Attachments

  • exodus annex 3.pdf
    1.3 MB · Views: 0

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
I have seen your page regarding convergence of facts. I am attaching Annexure 3 from my book regarding the evidences for Exodus from the Indus Valley. I hope this will match with your expectations. I am happy to provide responses to any weakness that you may see. Thanks

I read your papers on your linkedin page about a month ago. It doesn't match with regards to steps 1 - 7. Your paper starts with a theory you have, not based on a Hebrew text or an ancient understanding of what the text says in the langauge it was written.

I commented on some of the reasons why earlier in this thread why what you have written does not match the concept of a convergence of facts but it starts with not knowing what the source material states, in its language, and also not knowing what has been written throusands of years in Hebrew through Torath Mosheh Jewish communities. Of course these are things you admitted about your knowledge base.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
That is what I am trying to do. Would this be convergence?

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.

The sixth name is that of Biblical Noah and his Hindu parallel Vaivaswat Manu. “Noah” is written as “Noach” which is then also written as “Manowach.” “Manowach” and “Manu” both have the same two consonants “M” and “N.” Therefore, we consider the name Noach or Manu to be parallel to Manu.

No tower. Ziggurats are not towers since width > height.

I would consider making a new thread on this.

Also, be aware that I addressed these in the following comments I made earlier in this discussion.

Egyptian exodus proof or slavery? (#1)

Egyptian exodus proof or slavery? (#2)

Egyptian exodus proof or slavery? (#3)

Egyptian exodus proof or slavery? (#4)

Egyptian exodus proof or slavery? (#5)

Egyptian exodus proof or slavery? (#6)

Egyptian exodus proof or slavery? (#7)
 

Bharat Jhunjhunwala

TruthPrevails
Also, be aware that I addressed these in the following comments I made earlier in this discussion.

I tried to look up the seven points you made earlier. I am not sure if I reached them. I am giving my responses to those where I could find your comment (other than those that only gave video links). I have marked the discussion as “EV” and “BJ.” I request that you may kindly consider and reply to each point.

EV2. Oral traditions say the color was red.

BJ2: Oral traditions are not Word of God. These have been made after the Exile when the original geography was lost to memory and Indus geography was transposed to West Asia.

We find that 34 places listed in the endnote are mentioned in both the pre- and post-Exodus narratives of the Bible (Ai, Assyria, Avith, Beersheba, Bethel, Canaan, Dothan, Edom, Egypt, Gerar, Gilead, Goshen, Havilah, Hebron, Jordan, Kadesh, Kiriath Arba, Luz, Mahanaim, Midian, Moab, Moreh, Moriah, Negev, Paran, Penuel, Philistine, Yam Suph (Reed Sea), Seir, Shechem, Shur, Succoth, Zeboim and Zoar). Our hypothesis is that the pre-Exodus events were located in the Indus Valley and the post-Exodus events were located in Yisrael. The mention of these 34 places in both the narratives could be explained by postulating that the Hebrews carried names of these places from the Indus Valley and gave them to certain places in Yisrael that now carry these names. We see that migrants frequently give names of their home locations to their host locations. For example, the names Liverpool, London, and York have been carried from the United Kingdom and given to Liverpool in New South Wales, Australia; London in Ontario, Canada; and New York City in the United States.

In this same manner we suggest that the Hebrews gave the name “Aravalli” of the mountain in the Indus Valley, modified as “Ararat,” to the mountain in Turkey that carries that name today. They gave the name “Meru,” modified as “Moriah,” to the Temple Mount at Jerusalem. They gave the name “Yamuna,” modified as “Jordan,” to the river of Yisrael that carries this name today.

At the same time, 27 places listed in the endnote are mentioned only in the pre-Exodus narratives of the Bible and not mentioned in the post-Exodus narratives (Abel Mizraim, Admah,* Atad, Beer Lahai Roi, Bela, Eder, Elam, Ellasar, Galeed, Gomorrah,* Haran,* Machpelah, Mamre, Pau, Padan Aram,* Peniel, Rehoboth,* River of Egypt,* Shinar,* Siddim, Sin,* Sinai,* Sitnah, Sodom,* Tidal, Ur of the Chaldeans,* Zeboim* and Zin.* Place names marked with asterisk are mentioned in the post-Exodus narrative always alluding to the pre-Exodus events). These include important places like Sodom, Gomorrah, Siddim, and Sinai. This is surprising because the Hebrews travelled frequently through the areas where these places are allegedly located in Yisrael. They would have passed through these places after reaching Yisrael and could not have but noticed the existence of these places. For example, Sodom is allegedly located on the banks of the Dead Sea in Yisrael. The Hebrews passed through this area many times after they reached Yisrael. They would have remembered the existence of Sodom here. But we do not find them mentioning this city in their post-Exodus narratives as a living city. All references to Sodom in the post-Exodus narrative invariably refer to the events that took place here before the Exodus took place.

This leads us to suggest that, unlike the earlier list of 34 places, the migrants did not give the names of these 27 places to places in Yisrael. The absence of mention of these cities in the post-Exodus narratives as living places suggests that these were located at a place other than Yisrael, possibly in the Indus Valley.

>>> Please paste this thread and reply to this point here so that I can keep track.

xxx

EV3
clip_image002.png


BJ3: There is no statement of the Nile becoming red. Nile is the defining feature of Egypt. The first reference appears to be such a geographical indicator. The reference to blood is not related to water. Further, we have to make a comparative assessment:

Geography 1 Flood Waters. MP (Mesopotamia): No evidence of flood waters staying for 150 days. IV (Indus Valley): Bowl-like structure near Jalore could hold waters for 150 days.

Geography 2 Distance between Flood area and Ararat traversable by boat: MP: Ararat Mountains are located 600-1000 km from the flood area. Aravalli mountains located 150 km from the flood area.

Archaeology: MP: Evidence for habitation at 8000 BCE. Evidence of flood at 3000 BCE. IV: Floods on Luni River started at 3000 BCE.

Names: MP: No name parallel to Noah. IV: The name “Ararat” not found in ancient texts. IV: “Noah” is written as “Noach” which is then also written as “Manowach.” “Manowach” and “Manu” both have the same two consonants “M” and “N.” Ararat=Aravalli. The name Jalore of the place where the flood took place means “city of water.”

Literature: MP: Gilgamesh tells of the Flood in Dilmun that is identified with the Indus Valley by Kramer. No flood tale, to my knowledge, in Sumeric literature. IV: A flood took place at the time of Vaivaswat Manu. He was saved in a boat with 7 persons.

xxx

EV4

The ability for water, in Egypt at a specific time, to turn into blood, at a very specific time in history, for the sake of what we called in Hebrew (עשר מכות) "Eser Makkot" is one of those exceptions.

BJ4: There is no parallel natural event in Egypt.



xxx

EV4A: Thus, Jewish sources describe that even in when a Mitzri and a Yisraeli were in the same area for the Mitzri it was very much (דם) and for the Yisraeli it was (מים).

BJ4A: “Soources” are not Word of God.

xxx

EV4B: Also, very important to note the word (דם) does not mean "still or stagnant" the three letter root (ד-מ-ה) that (דם) comes from means "resemble" and by some is considered to be a Gradational Varient of the roots (ד-ו-מ) and (ד-מ-מ) which "can" mean quiet based on thier grammer and structure.

BJ4B: The word dam <01818> has its origin in damam <01826> which means “silence 3, silent 2, die 2, kept silent 2, still 2, keeps quiet 1, Lament 1, Patiently wait 1, Stay 1, Stay put 1, quiet 1, stop 1, stopping to rest 1, stood still 1, speechless 1, unceasingly 1, killed 1.” The interpretation of “dam” as “blood” seems to come from flow of blood becoming stagnant i.e., death.

xxx

BJ4C: A peculiarity of the Indus valley is that a major river named Hakra shifted it's course from west to east. The western course became stagnant pools. Thus, six of the 10 plagues are related to shortage or purification of water.

EV4C: Actually, that is an English reading. It is not what the Hebrew text says. Even the word "plague" is not what the Hebrew text states took place. There are other places where water becomes stagnent and that is not a peculiar thing to happen in one location.


BJ4C: Please consider six of the 10 plagues are related to shortage or putrification of water.

xxx

BJ4D: But we have to show evidence of stagnant water in Egypt.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
I have marked the discussion as “EV” and “BJ.” I request that you may kindly consider and reply to each point.

EV2. Oral traditions say the color was red.

What you have written here is incorrect. I stated that both the written Torah, in Hebrew, and the oral Torah given by Hashem to Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews are clear that the word (דם) used in the written Torah translates into "blood" in English.

BJ2: Oral traditions are not Word of God. These have been made after the Exile when the original geography was lost to memory and Indus geography was transposed to West Asia.

As I stated before, you are reading Christian bibles which are created from "Christian traditions" which were placed into Christian translations. Thus, this explains your use of Strong's.

Also, as mentioned before, the concept of a "god" that you are describing is not based on anything found in the Hebrew text of the Torah which only came to the world due to Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews. Thus, the experts in how the text of the Hebrew Torah

The following may help prove this point.



 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
EV4A: Thus, Jewish sources describe that even in when a Mitzri and a Yisraeli were in the same area for the Mitzri it was very much (דם) and for the Yisraeli it was (מים).

BJ4A: “Soources” are not Word of God.

As mentioned before, the concept of a "god" and the "word" of such concept is not found in the Hebrew text. It appears you are coming from Christian background, using Christian texts, and by your own admission you don't know Hebrew.

Thus, you have created your own tradition to reflect the god that you ascribe to.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
EV4B: Also, very important to note the word (דם) does not mean "still or stagnant" the three letter root (ד-מ-ה) that (דם) comes from means "resemble" and by some is considered to be a Gradational Varient of the roots (ד-ו-מ) and (ד-מ-מ) which "can" mean quiet based on thier grammer and structure.

BJ4B: The word dam <01818> has its origin in damam <01826> which means “silence 3, silent 2, die 2, kept silent 2, still 2, keeps quiet 1, Lament 1, Patiently wait 1, Stay 1, Stay put 1, quiet 1, stop 1, stopping to rest 1, stood still 1, speechless 1, unceasingly 1, killed 1.” The interpretation of “dam” as “blood” seems to come from flow of blood becoming stagnant i.e., death.

Your information is based on Strong's Concordance. I have addressed how it is well known that those who use Strong's are not reliable. Even in the Christian world this is well known. Thus, what you are actually analayzing is not a Hebrew Torah based claim. I have already shown how the Torath Mosheh Israeli/Jewish are way more ancient, authentic, and authorative than the Christian text called Strong's.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
BJ3: There is no statement of the Nile becoming red. Nile is the defining feature of Egypt. The first reference appears to be such a geographical indicator. The reference to blood is not related to water. Further, we have to make a comparative assessment:

Not true.

I addressed that already. See below

88622_6642b0837d245079eced3fffbaf02175.png


88623_665d30e016016db2186d1fe4ce456ac2.png


88700_d0c44d0960bf86adb635a40b7fb772af.png


88701_66598c4a12098c23d96c8e785125a7cd.png
 

River Sea

Active Member
As mentioned before, the concept of a "god" and the "word" of such concept is not found in the Hebrew text. It appears you are coming from Christian background, using Christian texts, and by your own admission you don't know Hebrew.

Thus, you have created your own tradition to reflect the god that you ascribe to.

@Ehav4Ever @Bharat Jhunjhunwala

Elohim = big bang
Meaning: Hashem is the source of all reality i.e. the cause of reality
Elohim means: Strength / Power


When having a relationship with and allowing to teach me: is this having a relationship with collective consciousness?

I've seen white light in people radiate outward while light continues in people., how would you word this in Irvith?

White light also feeds the spirit burn fire and inner peace, how would you word this in Irvith?



 
Last edited:

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member

Elohim = big bang
Meaning: Hashem is the source of all reality i.e. the cause of reality
Elohim means: Strength / Power


When having a relationship with and allowing to teach me: is this having a relationship with collective consciousness?

I've seen white light in people radiate outward while light continues in people., how would you word this in Irvith?

White light also feeds the spirit burn fire and inner peace, how would you word this in Irvith?

Greetings. From a Torath Mosheh perspective what you have described is something that Jews are not to associate with. Knowing and studying Torah is how we Torath Mosheh Jews get to the place that Hashem wants Israel/Jews to be in.
 
Last edited:
Top