With A Heavy Heart, I Say This to Atheists and Christians

Actually, the word Habiru in Egyptian means "dusty ones" and refered to all the different nomadic tribes which existed in the realm Egypt, and even without. The Amarna Letters (In 1847 a collection of some 300 cuneiform tablets were unearthed containing letters written to the pharaoh by the "kings" of Canaan.), written from Canaanite kings to Pharoah Akhenaten specifically ask for help from Akhenaten because the leader of the Habiru is about to take the city of Shalem. The leader is even mentioned by name - David. According to the biblical record, David does indeed take the city of Shalem (Jerusalem) and establishes the kingdom of Israel.

The Amarna Letters are often misdated to the time of the Exodus but recent historical evidence places them correctly at the time of the first kings of Israel. The first king of the Habiru is named in the letters as Labiu - "the Lion". This no doubt refers to King Saul who was a head and shoulders taller than anyone else in Israel. The name Saul or Shaul means "Asked For" which is exactly what happened - the Habiru/Hebrew asked for a king - so Shual would have been his corranation name, rather than his given name (this is just the same as Rameses which is a correnation name, while his given name, or common name, is Shesha - in the bible Sheshak). The Amarna Letters record the defeat of Labiu on the slopes of mount Gilboa, which exactly correlates with the bible account of Saul and his sons and their last stand on mount Gilboa fighting the Philistines. The second king of the Habiru mentioned in the Amarna Letters is King David (it actually uses the name David - Amarna Letter EA 256), and, as is indicated above, the Canaanite king of Shalem (Jerusalem means the city of Salem) is begging for help because the Habiru are at the city gates. David does indeed take the city and no more is heard from the Canaaite King and Akhenaten does not send any help.

Akhenaten/Moses lived at the time of the first kings of Israel, not at the time of the Exodus.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Medicine Woman, I figured that would be your response, but you know as well as I this is simply a matter of semantics. The Habiru would eventually become the Israelites. However, just as David F. makes clear, the Habiru were actually a nomadic tribe. As a nomadic tribe they would have had to be shepherds. This is because, in keeping herds, which was their major source of food, they would have had to move whenever their herds had consumed the plantlife of any given area (naturally, since they were in a desert climate, and greenery is grows in patches here and there). Hence, in settling in Egypt (no doubt because of the seemingly endless supply of vegetation) they would have continued their work as shepherds, being experts at the task. This would also explain why they were capable of living in the desert for so long after leaving Egypt.

Shepherds, in the era, and even in Christ's era, were considered the lowest social class, and as such were very much looked down upon by the other classes. THIS is the true form of oppression that the Habiru endured during their settlement in Egypt. The Bible, nor any other source text, refers to the oppression of the Habiru as slavery, and so should not be considered as such. In being considered the lowest class, as shepherds, the Habiru would have suffered the kind of abuses as described in the Bible (ie, the reason that Moses is said to have killed a fellow Egyptian). Perhaps not by everyone, all the time, but such occurrances would not have been unheard of.

Anyway, the point to be had is that as a nomadic tribe, not originally from Egypt, the Habiru would have originally had it's own deity/deities. From all the source texts that indicate what their original belief systems were, we can only say that it was a monotheistic one. Hence, my point still stands.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

David F.: Actually, the word Habiru in Egyptian means "dusty ones" and refered to all the different nomadic tribes which existed in the realm Egypt, and even without.
*************
M*W: I didn't know you spoke ancient Egyptian. Am I ever impressed!!! However, I believe you're wrong about the Habiru.
*************
David F.: The Amarna Letters (In 1847 a collection of some 300 cuneiform tablets were unearthed containing letters written to the pharaoh by the "kings" of Canaan.), written from Canaanite kings to Pharoah Akhenaten specifically ask for help from Akhenaten because the leader of the Habiru is about to take the city of Shalem. The leader is even mentioned by name - David. According to the biblical record, David does indeed take the city of Shalem (Jerusalem) and establishes the kingdom of Israel.
*************
M*W: You are confused by all the names the pharoahs used. The only pharaoh to be called Akhenaten was Moses and he ruled ruled Egypt from 1367-1350BC. I've already listed the 18th dynasty, and there were four Tuthmosis that were Pharoahs, but they were ancestors of the Moses of the Pentateuch.
*************
David F.: The Amarna Letters are often misdated to the time of the Exodus but recent historical evidence places them correctly at the time of the first kings of Israel. Akhenaten/Moses lived at the time of the first kings of Israel, not at the time of the Exodus.
*************
M*W: I haven't gotten to the research of the ancient Israelites. I'm focusing on Moses right now. I still stand by my statement that you are confused about all the Mosis' who were pharaohs.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

M*W, I am trying very hard not to argue with you and to simply have a rational discussion - because I like you (you're not an ass like Mr. Snake). But, you are simply wrong about Moses/Akhenaten being the Moses of the bible. All the reasearch I have seen from you concerning the life and times of Akhenaten is true as far as I can tell, but the connection with the biblical Moses is simply wrong.

You never did answer my question:

Moses was born around 1600BC. When was Akhenaten born?​

 

Right, the "captivity" in Egypt was not at all the same as the salvery in the American south. While some of the Hebrews (Habiru) might have been house servants, they were not slaves like the American blacks - they were simply the working class of Egypt. You must remember though that Egypt was a monarchy and the King (Pharoah) could have anyone he wanted killed at a whim (newborn baby boys). The Hebrews were indeed subjected to harsh treatment and difficult working conditions, but it was not so hard that they were not willing to return when their time in the desert looked even worse.

When the children of Israel left their "captivity" and went to the desert, many other people came with them who were not "children of Israel" so that they were a mixed company. The term Hebrew or Habiru, does not apply strictly to those who would one day be Israelites.

 

Well... that's the closest science can get to an answer. In fact, that's exactly what I believed when I was 12 years old. But when you say that the universe has been "bigbanging" forever, is that relative to which time frame?

What about non-existance? Doesn't it exist?

Isn't that also true to existance and non-existance?
How would you explain a "place" that exist and doesn't exist and that is infinite and non-infinite at the same time. I do believe in this piece of information that you send. The only difference is that I don't see how the universe could recreate itself "forever" if there is no time.

Yeah.... and lots of irrational talk to, eh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

On defending the theory of relativity ...

by C20

rel·a·tiv·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rl-tv-t)
n.
The quality or state of being relative.
A state of dependence in which the existence or significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another.

It isn't a theory. It is a state and that state is a state of dependence in which the existence or significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another.

When applied to known objects in the universe I would have said that that was fairly obvious. All matter is energy / forces locked up in some mad kind of array. I'm no scientist but I remember in some far off physics class the guy saying that there was like the power off suns locked into a nuclear strong bond between two atoms or something like that. I would say that every atom has a path and the path of the atom was decided at ground zero. Even if the first move was 'random' which is highly unlikely given that we have 'language' of the most complex type, the atom itself had a path set for it by something other than itself. It seems that it was important that these atoms conformed to certain laws, unless of course we shall call this 'random' also. To be a whole, which of course is a term we must assign to the Universe for the Universe to be truly all in all as we understand it, we must reach the conclusion that everything has its place and that to remove even one speck of it would be to undo it. Therefore it seems only right to me to say "That we exist in a state of dependence in which the existence or significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another"
Let us then conject that indeed our 'being' or indeed the being' of an atom is not random at all but rather a thing that has been planned by some first mover.
The fact that we the observor witness very personally, an apparent law at work whereby we have a state of independant individuals having dependance on one another i.e. the Human Race, is visible evidence that we are witness' to the work of the first mover and are indeed the fruit of that work. I can then only summise that we have relativity because the first mover is 'love' because at the pinnacle moment in my own observations of that which we are studying i.e. The Properties of Objects in Relation to One Another, In my observation I identify a feeling I call 'love'. Therefore as the corny old songs go "It's love that holds it all together". Thats some power holding it all together man! Like tons of sun's worth between two atoms so my physics teacher would say
I wouldn't worry about your lives

 

where are amoeba-man/c20 you are not on this planet firstly why are you talk about whatever that is because it is not the theory of relativity.
and has nothing to do with any of the previous posts.

but simplified for you this is basically what it is.

The special theory of relativity(1905) is concerned with relative motion between non-accelerated frames of reference. The general theory(1915) deals with general relative motion between accelerated frames of reference. In accelerated systems of reference, certain fictitious forces are observed, such as the centrifugal and Coriolis forces found in rotating systems. These are known as fictitious forces because they disappear when the observer transforms to an non-accelerated system.

dont speak, unless what you have to say, will change the silence.

 

You are right audible

I am an amoeba man. The difference between you and I though is you feel a need to belittle me, where as I just suffer you.
I would rather be the one suffering the abuse than to be the one who's abuse is being suffered any old day of the week.
Grow up a bit eh? Keep it civil. Theres a good chap!

Thanks

c20

 

I don't really understand what you mean by that... would infinity need to be relative to anything...

Yeah. If you want to know the truth, never be for or against, because with a dualistic mind it is not possible to understand "the only true reality". It is only possible to understand the truth with a pure and empty mind, because only then can it be filled with the truth. We must let go of thoughts, of emotions and everything to understand this. We will be like a doll, it has no ego - "I" will dissapear and the doll will go on with its own life. I am where I am, the real state of life is pure and eternal happiness.

Two opposites does not have an absolute existence by themselves but they are dependant on the one which creates them. There is no good and bad in reality for example. It only depends on how we use what we use, and what we think of what we think. Two opposites are dependant on each other because the world has been separated and is always seeking the state of divine one-ness. The negative and the positive makes the perfect state when melted together.

Man thinks that his completion is another person who manifests the opposite pole, but he is deceived by Nature who's job is to duplicate itself to survive. Man does not realize that matter and matter are opposites and thus two bodies can never melt together because that which is impossible stays impossible. Two things can't be on the same place at the same time in the material world, but it is fully possible for two things to be in the same place in the consciousness which does not include the law of matter.

Everything is like magnetic wires searching for their complementary half, but the wire keeps searching it from outside and that way it will never find it. (these wires however creates the world by combining with each other in great circles and yet greater circles into infinity and makes the ground, the base for life) Only by combining its own negative and positive pole in itself it will create a circle which implodes by its own magnetic force into the state of eternal oneness, because the life will not only go up or down anymore, it will flow through the circle and give it eternal life. There is no dualism anymore.

Only that which we do not know is propably seen as irrational.

 

Infinite time must be relative to time. You need a time fram in order to have "infinite time". If you don't have the universe itself, how can you have a time frame?

Huuummm..... have you ever read the Tao Te Ching?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So... is everything irrational?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Time exist only in the thoughts but still every fruit must have time to ripen.

No.

Of course not, at least not for me because I know many things. That which I think is irrational or that which I don't love is what I have not learned to understand in myself.

 

Well... that's to deny relativity....

You should! It talk exactly about what you were talking about the opposites.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So whatever you don't understand, you conclude it must be irrational?

 

Look, to the pure in heart all things are pure.

Consider that. It is wisdom for you.

peace

c20

 

Probably not because relativity exists as long as we think, as long as we don't become like trees. Things are what we think of them, but if we don't think anything, relativity doesn't really have a real existence. Relativity belongs to the separated world, for the separated mind. There may not be free will, but we think we have, so we think we are punished. But this absolute reality, that there is no free will or destiny or relativity doesn't really matter right now...

Yeah, I like to talk about opposites... Actually I've heard the name before, and maybe read maybe 5 quotes. But I never read much, I maybe was inspired of Bruce lee when talking about the doll. He said: "Turn into a doll made of wood: it has no ego, it thinks nothing, it is not grasping or sticky. Let the body and limbs work theselves out in accordance with the discipline they have undergone." He's cool...

No... "that which Seems irrational is only that which i yet don't understand in myself..." but i don't conclude it as irrational... because I may know it some day.