why did GOD stop sending messengers?!!

At the time of the oppression, sure. What does this have to do with the name Moses?

Look, I mean no disrespect but you don't seem to be aware, (or care perhaps), about what we're specifically talking about.

I am saying that Moses comes from the Egyptian Mo/Uses and you tell me Rameses was the pharoah at the same time Moses was alive. It's confuzzling.

And to think... all that started this was my suggestion that Moses was probably based upon the Sargon legend.

I will say ok to that. But then we seemingly have a choice:

1. Moses in Egyptian means 'drawn out from water'. The bible also declares that this is the reason he was named Moses. We know that in Egyptian, a person who was named because he was drawn out from water would be.. well.. 'Moses'.

2. They just called him 'son of' because they felt like making fun of him. But, instead of naming him 'mesu' (son of), they named him after someone that was drawn out of water.

I'm going to have to side with the former, no offence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

since you look like you got a headache

i will post up other alternatives for folks to look at

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They're interesting, (although none assert that he was named Moses so people could make fun of him).

1. The islamic statements work in accordance with the Egyptian meaning and the biblical statements. I have not argued against this, indeed having argued for it.

2. The last paragraph mentions that some scholars believe it's only half his name, (which satisfies my statement that calling a child 'son of' is somewhat pointless without a little bit more).

3. The 'jewish scholars' statement is accurate in that 'Moses' does in fact, in Egyptian, mean to draw out. Whether it was translated into Hebrew by Moses or Muhatma Gandhi is inconsequential.

4. Whether such person was known by various names is also inconsequential. My daughter is known by three names - it doesn't argue against the origin of her first given name.

5. The first paragraph isn't relevant. We know, if the story is true, that he was a lawgiver and is a prophet in judaism, christianity and islam.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i thought we were done with this as it is something you cannot prove without going to the symbols of both the original torah and egyptian works


i tried to find the old stuff but i am not real interested in something so trivial as providing evidence that the second generations of the theology are a weeeeee bit changed

meaning; just as wwII does not mean the same to a german as it does to a jewish believer. (often them afterwards changed things)


and that is what occurred



but if you want me to concede, i will as i am not interested in going over something so rediculous as to contest term to a name, that you are just observing based on post judaism (eg.... show me a reference to your analogy in the egyptian language)




if you realized how much is changed you would not be arguing with me on this and since i am too lazy to research over moses name; then you da man!

but if you want to continue, then show me

that fact!

The 'jewish scholars' statement is accurate in that 'Moses' does in fact, in Egyptian, mean to draw out

show me the egyptian words......... since you blasting 'fact'


p/s... i observe a jewish scholar like an adolph hitler; they both biased.

So offer real material if you want to continue this game.

 

Which is interesting considering your entire argument rested on "OT and Egyptian archaological evidence", which is surely another way of saying 'both the original torah and Egyptian works"?

Sorry, what "second generations" are those. And changed from what?

Sorry, the meaning of 'mo' and 'uses' in the ancient Egyptian language didn't mean then what it meant.. then?

Fine:

Mo = water
Uses = to draw out.

 

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
God committed the offending actions. ”

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
To you. "

Your perspective is all you're going by.
According to The Holy Babble, God is the most offensive being ever known or imagined as well as the least actually offended while imagining offenses & blowing everything way out of proportion.

 

“ Only if you concede that god is not omniscient, omnipotent or benevolent. ”

Of course, they're not casual. They're quite serious.

Inactions can be as evil as actions.

 

You obviously don't.
I take Saturday off.

 

The pots call the kettle black.

 

you like that eh..........?

water to draw out

don't make sense

if it meant; the child from the slave put child in water and he was drawn out of the water............ all under egyptian words, then i could say you did it

but your opinion is based on a religious book and a practitioner of THAT religions interpretation.

it seems to me that if you cannot show the symbols to provide evidence, then i can call the water idea suspect

after seeing what torah has done to this earth over the last 70 years, i will question the smell of a fart, if it comes from anything torah

i shared my side of the argument and i said, if you want to continue, then prove your case otherwise, i will concede


i don't accept religious texts defining themselves; perhaps you do

 

and i work 7 days a week

does that make us pagen gentiles?

 

You & Bishi should understand each other.

The ONLY time I've known Oli to be impolite is when he had me shot.

You are the 1 who's clearly exhibited hostility.

 

I don't think the issue is whether I like that or not. Puzzling.

No, neither does 'ra-son of'.

1. The 'opinion' is based upon the Egyptian language.

2. Even if, just for the sake of discussion, we pretended that the opinon was based upon religious definition of a word, what is your point? I assume that point would be something like: If it's religious, it's a lie? I'm open to evidence to support that assertion.

3. Even if such definition was religious, I don't see what claim you would make to it being a religious fabrication. Does the name Moses meaning 'to draw out of water' change that much in the realm of religious bias than 'son of' would? What would be the purpose of such a fabrication?

While I mean no disrespect, it is not an issue for anyone that has some understanding of ancient Egyptian. I would personally suggest the very same place you got the 'son of' idea. Failing that, try google. While I have every intention of conversing with and helping individuals, I wont do everything for them. Out of interest, you can call anything you like 'suspect'. It never has and never will change anything.

I don't think personal hatred of the Torah or belief in it causing worldly chaos has anything to do with the original meaning of 'Moses'. If you think it does... *shrug*

1. Should have said that 10 posts ago.

2. Moses did not start the religion, that would have been Abraham.

3. Abraham wasn't from Africa, he was from Sumeria.

 

"Hoot Gibson Died For Your Sins"

http://www.pjfarmer.com/wnew.htm

 

Your demands to god are irrelevant.

Every messenger from god was called a liar.

 

tenacious one are you!?!?

you like your idea (water) because it fits an old story derived by a religious point of view

Not unless yo provide the symbols as Mo-ses are not egyptian words; them is english symbolism (letters)

then you've been opened up to the alternative; now we both have something (NEW) to observe as a possibility

Moses was dead, when the torah was accepted as the religious doctrine.

Moses is who is supposedly wrote torah. (so the rendition of him being floated down (maybe up) river, is suspect itself)

It is like suggesting Jesus walked on water, when HE would probably say; 'it was a sand bar and you all couldn't see it with the sun in your eyes reflecting off the water. Don't you guys know that light reflects off water and the laws of physics tell you all no one can walk on water." (did i quote him correctly?)

the point is your WHOLE argument is based on a religious interpretation combined with a religious book defining itself

so unless you want to do the homework to show the actual symbols from egyptian literature, then you just dancing within a religious ideal and claiming proof by its own text. (i call the evidence so far, 'less than')

you have made a clear statement of opinion

and since the debate cannot be proven by a religious text, defining itself; then without the work from an egyptian source, then the argument is practically dead unless you wish to just go tangent and get into a pissing contest (don't as i hang deep and can write a whole sentence in one piss)

Oh boy........... i could say; "prove moses existed outside of torah" and just shut down the whole conversation.

Bull............ Abram wrote nothing!

from the first 15 commandments (apparently one tablet dropped and borke up...........10 left) to the whole of torah, was supposedly written by moses.
(no arc, no proof: period)

So from circumcision to the law of no pork; all of it was learned from an egypt living folk of africa.

From the language (ability to write) all the way to how to build and arc.......... it was all learned from egyptians.

But abram is another person in the stories, not one who wrote or that can be documented.

Such that even the bible shows Ishmael as Abrams first born; but who is going to believe that except the uttttter team?

This level you are going into is nothing but a method of providing common sense to step on most of the BS believed by religious folks.

 

Not to my knowledge, but if you think it helps your case...

I've been an atheist since the very moment of my birth. Kindly tell me why I would "like" a story that derives from a "religious point of view".

Your claim here - that attempts to upset an argument because the arguer is apparently going to more bias towards it - is flawed. I don't like religion and I think god belief is the daftest thing since the days people professed to seeing mermaids.

Actually, with respect, but I go along with an argument in the exact same fashion as the original claimant/poster. You provided nothing other than your say so, that's exactly how I responded. Perhaps not the best way of doing things I admit, but I only put as much effort in as is required - given my limited free time.

Sorry, this doesn't serve as a response to my statement or questions.
I will "observe it as a possibility" when you provide something substantial.

As far as discussion goes, we're not saying the story is true.

Incorrect.

As we're going to adopt that style, let it be said that while I'm sure you can piss a lot, not much of it seems to hit the bowl.

Nobody ever claimed he did. You missed the bowl again, kindly wipe the walls.

Moses can't be documented outside of the very same stories and hence your argument argues against... well, everything - including any statement by you that he was in Egypt.

With respect young man but all I said was that the Moses story probably has it's origins in the Sargon legend. I'm just following you and your bad pissing ability.

 

just like your question below..... it shares that you like to be stubborn

because your ONLY leg to stand on is the religious opinion

how is that? the religions write up what they want the readers to believe; you following 'their' text over anything else.

I asked you to find any symbols, writtings and egyptian literature to perform your claim; and the only thing you can abridge is either of bible or of jewish interpretations (from the sect that wrote the bible)

then perhaps allow the debate to stand on its merit versus opinions from religious works/opinions

Now that was fair!

'we both pissing in the wind'...................... as i claimed, since i am not interested in digging up the old research and you will not either; then the debate at this point is practically moot

then either you BELIEVE the story of him being 'drawn from the water' or you have NO argument!

BS................as you posted this 2. Moses did not start the religion, that would have been Abraham.

so now your credibility is waiving in the wind

Moses is who is supposed to have written torah; the religion (most all of them) come from written literature...............

Your claim here is just like the claim of Moses name; you believing the theology before anything else (like common sense)

Not really cause there are stories about the slave revolts in egyptian writtings (no i will not dig them up, you do your own homework)