We are living in a world of illusion

[MMS]

@Koichos

it might seem crazy at first, but from my perspective how do we know the time period in which "that moses" was in Egypt

furthermore, the curse of the firstborn might not be as we immediately think

in genesis 1 it is found the phrase "the morning and the evening"

and as you quoted before "I will pass through the land of Egypt tonight," it is clear to me God makes a distinguished difference between Day and Night as it pertains to how he creates. So God created something that would affect the firstborn of those who held him and his people captive...

so the question then becomes is the exodus something that happened as a distinct event or is it an ongoing phenomenon remember the chariots of pharaoh chased the israelites

meaning that even after the plagues Pharaoh and his men "could" follow as far as Baalzaphon and Baalpeor which represent other countries' deities (relative to the time period)....reading between the lines the only way this can possibly be true is if its really talking about the language. From my perspective Torah is like the sword of egypt cutting through the gentile nations. It does not appear that way at first glance, but when you consider everything that has transpired only the egyptians have a similar understanding numerically and symbolically to the Jews
Baal-zephon - Wikipedia

Speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn and encamp before Pihahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Baalzephon: before it shall ye encamp by the sea. For Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, They are entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in. And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the Lord. And they did so.[15]

https://bible.ucg.org/bible-commentary/Judges/The-war-between-Ephraim-and-Gilead/

The Gileadites were a clan within Manasseh, dwelling east of the Jordan and north of the Dead Sea. They appear to have been very independent of their tribe, and this independence irked the men of Ephraim, who generally headed the House of Joseph. Hence their accusation that the Gileadites were fugitives among Ephraim and Manasseh (verse 4).

Now that the war with Ammon was over, the men of Ephraim suddenly showed courage. They accused Jephthah of deliberately failing to summon them to the battle as a means of humiliating the leading tribe in Joseph, and they intended to wage war against him. Led by Jephthah, the Gileadites steadfastly held their ground, taking the strategic byways and heights. They recognized Ephraimite infiltrators by their distinctive accent (showing that even in a small geographical region like Israel there were sharp delineations between—and sometimes bitter divisions among—the Israelite tribes and clans). However, the battle went entirely in favor of Jephthah and the Gileadites, and Gilead remained independent of their larger tribal units.

Jephthah judged only six years. After him a long series of judges followed: Ibzan of Bethlehem, seven years; Elon the Zebulonite, ten years; Abdon the Pirathonite (Ephraimite), eight years. Thus Israel enjoyed a total of 31 years of peace.

furthermore as someone also posted, the land of Crete in the bible is listed as being descended from Mizraim and there are literal historical sources involving those people emigrating to egypt due to wars in the aegean...

Caphtor - Wikipedia

 

[MMS]

@Koichos

the reason it is of concern, is because the egyptians have several prophetic documents detailing the transport of "Osiris" or Wsrj "The Mighty One" specifically leaving Egypt and traveling to the middle east in a coffin that somehow becomes a part of other kingdoms

so in essence, egypt has infiltrated most if not all languages that Jews have been involved with
Anhur - Wikipedia

I mentioned "Shu" above and this Anhur deity is just a separate epithet of the same deity. However unlike the Memphite pantheon Anhur-Shu has no brother or sons...and is also depicted with a "Spear"

needless to say, the stories in the Bible do in fact line up with egyptian prophecy whether that was by design or not is not clear. How do you know that the egyptians are "dead on the shore"? Perhaps like a race they just fell behind in their understanding of papyrus and ink

the old tale of the tortoise and the hare is interesting if you take a religious look at it within our realm of discussion

 

[MMS]

@Koichos @Marks

alittle bit of scripture to tie my understandings together

Isaiah 58

1 Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.

2 Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways, as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not the ordinance of their God: they ask of me the ordinances of justice; they take delight in approaching to God.

3 Wherefore have we fasted, say they, and thou seest not? wherefore have we afflicted our soul, and thou takest no knowledge? Behold, in the day of your fast ye find pleasure, and exact all your labours.

4 Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness: ye shall not fast as ye do this day, to make your voice to be heard on high.

5 Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the Lord?

6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?

7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

8 Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the Lord shall be thy reward.

9 Then shalt thou call, and the Lord shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity;

10 And if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noon day:

11 And the Lord shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.

12 And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.

13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

"And Ham was the father of Canaan"....
HOW ISLAM GOT JESUS COMPLETELY WRONG!

 

[Koichos]

not to mention BEFORE Muslims knew Allah as a GOD Muhammad connected to Abraham or Jesus, the pre Islamic pagan Arabs had been using the title ALLAH in reference to all types of as you say “foreign gods” if ALLAH is Arab translates to the older alowahh and:

ʾalowahh ('[a] god') and can refer to '[foreign] gods'

Perhaps you have forgotten (or were never aware) that אֱלֹהִים can also refer to '[foreign] gods'; the following is an example from the 2nd of the 'Ten Utterances' in the first 14 verses of Sh'moth, chapter 20, which the Torah itself (Sh'moth 34:28 and D'vorim 4:13, 10:14) refers to as עַשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים ʿasarath had'vorim: traditionally 'the Ten Things' (or 'Words', or 'Statements', or 'Sayings', or 'Utterances'), but more precisely 'Ten of the Things' ('Words', 'Statements', 'Sayings', 'Utterances').

Tanach: לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים עַל פָּנַי loʾ yih'yah l'cho ʾalohim ʾaherim ʿal ponai (Hebrew: 'You may not have other gods except Me')

Targum: לָא יִהְוֵי לָךְ אֱלָהּ אָחֳרָן בָּר מִנִּי loʾ yih'wei loch ʾalohh ʾohoron bor minni (Aramaic: 'You may not have any other god except Me')​

*Taken from the officially recognized targum of the Torah which provides a continuous verse-by-verse interpretive translation of the public Scriptural readings that form a central part of our communal prayer services.

I invite you to consider the following verses:

Sh'moth 20:3 [*mentioned above], 23:13
D'vorim 5:7, 6:14, 7:4, 8:19, 11:16, 11:28, 13:3, 13:7, 13:14, 17:3, 18:20, 28:14, 28:36, 28:64, 29:25, 31:18, 31:20
Y'hoshuʿa 23:16, 24:2, 24:16
Shof'ṭim 2:12, 2:17, 2:19, 10:13
Sh'muʾel ʾAlaf 4:8, 8:8, 26:19
M'lochim ʾAlaf 9:6, 11:4, 11:10, 14:9
M'lochim Béth 17:7, 17:35, 17:37, 17:38
Yir'm'yohu 7:6, 7:9, 11:10, 13:10, 16:11, 16:13, 25:6, 35:15
Hosheʿa 3:1
Div'ré Hayyomim Béth 7:19​

In all of these verses apart from Sh'muʾel ʾAlaf 4:8, the noun אֱלֹהִים ʾalohim is qualified by the plural adjective אֲחֵרִים ʾaherim (and in Sh'muʾel ʾAlaf 4:8 it is qualified by the plural adjective הָאֲדִּירִים hoʾaddirim, the plural pronoun הֵם hem and the plural verb הַמַּכִּים ha-makkim), so that אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים ʾalohim aherim means 'other [false] deities'. אֱלֹהִים is a plural form, even though it is often singular in meaning—with more than 1,100 cases of אֱלֹהִים governing a singular verb-inflection.

'Singular' and 'plural' forms are used in Hebrew in quite a different way from how they are used in English; thus, it can never be inferred that an individual is meant just because the singular form of a noun is used. For example, the Holy Titles אֲדֹנָי ʾadhonoy 'my Master' and אֱלֹהִים ʾalohim 'God'—together with their derivative forms, such as אֲדֹנֵינוּ ʾadhoneinu 'our Master' and אֱלֹהֵיכֶם ʾaloheicham 'your God'—are exceptions to this generalization, but are invariably identified as singular by the use of singular verbs; in particular, throughout the first division of our Torah (which consistently calls Him אֱלֹהִים ʾalohim; we are not introduced to the Sacred Name until the fourth verse of the second chapter), the verbs are all singular

verse 3: ויאמר wayyoʾmar ('and HE said');
verse 4: וירא wayya'rʾ ('and HE saw'),
also in verse 4: ויבדל wayyav'del ('and HE separated');
verse 5: ויקרא wayyiq'roʾ ('and HE called'),
again in verse 5: קרא qoroʾ ('HE called');
verse 7: ויעש wayyaʿas ('and HE made');
verse 17: ויתן wayyiten ('and HE placed');
verse 27: ויברא wayyiv'roʾ ('and HE created');
verse 28: ויברך way'vorach ('and HE blessed').​

The corresponding plural forms of these verbs (which are NOT used) are:

ויאמרו wayyoʾm'ru ('and THEY said');
ויראו wayyirʾu ('and THEY saw'),
ויבדילו wayyav'dilu ('and THEY separated');
ויקראו wayyiq'rʾu ('and THEY called'),
קראו qorʾu ('THEY called');
ויעשו wayyaʿasu ('and THEY made');
ויתנו wayyit'nu ('and THEY placed');
ויבראו wayyivrʾu ('and THEY created');
ויברכו way'vor'chu ('and THEY blessed').​

This isn’t an issue for Jews since they have many additional descriptions/titles like hashem or the name or lord all still point to YHWH

In fact, the word הַשֵּׁם hashem is of Biblical origin and occurs in reference to the Explicit Name:

:וַיֵּצֵא בֶּן־אִשָּׁה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית וְהוּא בֶּן־אִישׁ מִצְרִי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּנָּצוּ בַּמַּחֲנֶה בֶּן הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית וְאִישׁ הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי: וַיִּקֹּב בֶּן־הָאִשָּׁה הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִית אֶת־הַשֵּׁם וַיְקַלֵּל וַיָּבִיאוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה וְשֵׁם אִמּוֹ שְׁלֹמִית בַּת־דִּבְרִי לְמַטֵּה־דָן: וַיַּנִּיחֻהוּ בַּמִּשְׁמָר לִפְרֹשׁ לָהֶם עַל־פִּי ה׳​

The son of a certain Yisrʾelith woman (who was the son of an Egyptian man) went out among the b'nei Yisroʾel; and this son of a Yisrʾelith woman got into a fight in the camp with a Yisrʾeli man. Then the son of the Yisrʾelith woman uttered the Name, and cursed, so they brought him before Moshah (his mother's name was Sh'lomith bath-Di'v'ri of the tribe Don); and he was confined in detention, until the matter could be clarified for them from ʾAdhonoy's Mouth. (Wayyiq'roʾ 24:10-12)

The sentence passed on the 'son of the Yisrʾelith woman' was severe:

:וַיְדַבֵּר ה׳ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר: הוֹצֵא אֶת־הַמְקַלֵּל אֶל־מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְסָמְכוּ כָל־הַשֹּׁמְעִים אֶת־יְדֵיהֶם עַל־רֹאשׁוֹ וְרָגְמוּ אֹתוֹ כָּל־הָעֵדָה: וְאֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל תְּדַבֵּר לֵאמֹר אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי־יְקַלֵּל אֱלֹקָיו וְנָשָׂא חֶטְאוֹ: וְנֹקֵב שֵׁם־ה׳ מוֹת יוּמָת רָגוֹם יִרְגְּמוּ־בוֹ כָּל־הָעֵדָה כַּגֵּר כָּאֶזְרָח בְּנָקְבוֹ־שֵׁם יוּמָת​

Then ʾAdhonoy spoke to Moshah and said, "Take the one who cursed [Me] outside the camp and have everyone who heard [him] press their hands onto his head; then the entire congregation is to execute him. And tell the b'nei Yisroʾel this: 'Any man who curses his ʾAlohim commits an unforgivable sin. And anyone who utters the Name YUDH, HEʾ, WOW, HEʾ must be put to death—the entire congregation is to execute him; the same applies to a foreigner as to a citizen: he must die for his utterrance of the Name.' " (Wayyiq'roʾ 24:13-16)

It should be noted that שֵׁם shem is used twice in Wayyiq'roʾ 24:16 (i. וְנֹקֵב שֵׁם־ה׳ 'he uttered [the] Name YUDH, HEʾ, WOW, HEʾ' and ii. בְּנָקְבוֹ שֵׁם 'for his utterance of [the] Name'). The 'son of the Yisrʾelith woman'—whose name is not recorded, although his mother's name (Sh'lomith daughter of Di'v'ri, from the tribe Don) is—actually committed two separate offences: (i) he spoke the Four-Lettered Divine 'Name', and (ii) he cursed It; he was executed for the first of these two crimes.

 

[Koichos]

Do Jews claim to be “Muslim”

What kind of question is that?! Jews are, well, Jewish (a demonym derived from the name of our last kingdom); Yisroʾel has been a 'nation' (that is, a people) for a very, very long time—we became one in Egypt three and a half millennia ago! Judaism goes back three and a half millennia while Islam has only been around for approaching 1,400 years, or very roughly two-fifths of Judaism's age. To put it simply, our ancestors stood at Mount Horev in the Sinai Desert on a Shovuʿoth morning, 6th Siwon 2448 and made a b'rith (legal agreement or contract) with Hashem to live by the Torah, while their ancestors did not. In fact, Jewish history can be said to have begun in 1948 לִבְרִיאַת הָעולָם (when ʾAvrom ʾOvinu was born).

וְעָנִיתָ וְאָמַרְתָּ לִפְנֵי ׀ ה׳ אֱלֹקֶיךָ
אֲרַמִּי אֹבֵד אָבִי
וַיֵּרֶד מִצְרַיְמָה
וַיָּגָר שָׁם בִּמְתֵי מְעָט
:וַיְהִי־שָׁם לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל עָצוּם וָרָב​

Then you are to call out and say before Hashém your ʾAlohim,
'An ʾArammi [tried to] destroy my ancestor
so he descended to Miss'rayim
and settled there [temporarily], being few in number;
and there he became a great, powerful and numerous nation.'
(D'vorim 26:5—a verse which is quoted during the very important table-ceremonial on Pasah Eve)

On a similar tack, the Tanach refers to Yisroʾel as עַם ʿam ('a people') and הָעָם hoʿom ('the people') many more times than it refers to us as גּוֹי goy ('a nation'). The Hebrew word עַם ʿam, translated as 'people', is a singular noun—'a people' (i.e., a nation) not persons; therefore, in Biblical terms 'people' represents the singular noun עַם ʿam ('a people')—a nation. In English, however, the word 'people' can be used in two very different senses: (i) it can be a singular noun synonymous with nation (i.e., a people), but (ii) it can also be used as a plural noun meaning persons. When עַם ʿam is used in the Tanach it is invariably used in the former sense; in reference to ʿAm Yisroʾel, the 'people' (or nation) of Yisroʾel, the Jewish nation.

Incidentally, our ancestors, when referred to in the Tanach as an ethnic entity, were exclusively called עִבְרִים from the time of ʾAvrohom until the time of Yaʿaqov, and בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל thereafter; יְהוּדִי is found only in the later books of the Tanach: it is the masculine form of the adjective associated with the proper noun יְהוּדָה, denoting that the person so-described originated from the southern Hebrew province. עִבְרִים was therefore the original name used to describe our people, but apart from nine anomalous instances in Sh'muʾel A (4:6,9; 13:3,7,19; 14:8,11,21; 29:3), its use in the written Scriptures is limited to the period before the Exodus; only after the rise of Sh'lomoh's Temple did the constituent tribes become known as יְהוּדִים.

or do you believe ALLAH as an acceptable name of Gods?

God : English :: ʾAllah : Arabic
​

الله ʾAllah is just the Arabic title for the Creator; it is not specific to Islam at all (for that matter, even Jewish speakers of Arabic regularly refer to Hashem as الله ʾAllah in colloquial speech, although it is frequently replaced by ربنا Rabenaʾ ('Our Master'): Heb. אֱלֹהֵינוּ ʾAloheinu). In fact, Jews from Arabic countries such as the Halabim have an Arabic version of ʾAhodh Mi Yodheʿa found in the Haggodhoh recited at Pasah service that uses the words אללהו וואחיד ʾAllahu waʾhid ('God is One'). Even the likes of the Ramba"m (whom we call 'the second Moshah', see my post #500)—Rav Moshah ban Maimon—arguably the most illustrious Torah scholar of the last millennium (surely among the S'faraddim), frequently referred to Hashem as الله ʾAllah; and in his work 'Sefar Ha-miss'woth', the Ramba"m says إِنْ شَاءَ ٱللَّٰهُ inshaʾAllah. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for Yis'rʾeli Jews whose families migrated to E"Y from Arabic countries to use the corresponding Arabic phrase إِنْ شَاءَ ٱللَّٰهُ inshaʾAllah as opposed to the Hebrew אִם יִרְצֶה הַשֵּׁם ʾim yir'ssah hashem, 'if God wills it'; or even בְּעֶזְרַת הַשֵּׁם bʿaz'rath hashem 'with God's help', similar to the Aramaic בְּסִיַּיעְתָּא דִשְׁמַיָּא‎ b'siyyaʿtoʾ di-sh'mayyoʾ 'with Heaven's help'.

My ancestors in pre-Islamic Témon from the period of the Him'yorite kingdom, which corresponds roughly to the time of Y'hudhoh I Hannosiʾ ('the Nosiʾ' or 'Prince'), great-great-great-great-grandson of Hillel Hazzoqen ('the Zoqen' or 'Elder')—floreat c. 165-220 CE—addressed the Creator in various Hebrew and Aramaic and Arabic titles, one being إله ʾilah (a direct cognate of the Hebrew אֱלוֹהַּ ʾalowahh and Aramaic אֱלָהּ ʾalohh). The Arabic title الله ʾallah is simply the term إله ʾilah prefixed with the definite article ال ʾal- (cf. Hebrew's ה־ ha-). In Arabic, just like in Hebrew, the definite article prefix is connected (or 'assimilated') to the first letter of the word so that the [now] second letter 'doubles' in sound—this is known as shaddaʾ in Arabic and dogesh in Hebrew. For example, ʾal-ʾilah becomes ʾallah and ha-shem is technically hashshem (note the dot in הַשֵּׁם). The only letters that are not doubled and render the הַ־ ha- into a הָ־ ho- are א ʾalaf, ע ʿayin, ר reish. The short answer to your question: Yes, الله ʾAllah is a perfectly acceptable Arabic title for Hashem, religious affiliation aside; Jews of Arabic extraction do refer to Him as such in the vernacular, and have been doing so since pre-Islamic times.

'God' is to English as 'ʾAllah' is to Arabic—but neither is a 'name' of the Creator (see my post#635). In prayer, though, we Jews use the names printed in the Siddur (daily prayerbook), which depend on the context of each specific passage.​

 

[Koichos]

@Koichos

it might seem crazy at first, but from my perspective how do we know the time period in which "that moses" was in Egypt

For reference, it is currently 5782 לִבְרִיאַת הָעולָם ('reckoned from the creation [of the primeval Adam]').

From the creation of the Adam to the birth of No'ah.............................................. 1,056 years (B'reshιth 5:3-29)
From the birth of No'ah to the Mabbul (Flood)....................................................... 600 years (B'reshιth 7:6, 7:11)
From the Mabbul to the birth of ʾAvro(ho)m............................................................ 292 years (B'reshιth 11:10-27)
From the birth of ʾAvrom to the birth of Yiss'hoq..................................................... 100 years (B'reshιth 21:5)
*From the birth of Yiss'hoq to the Y'ssiʾath Miss'rayim (Exodus)............................ 400 years (B'reshιth 15:13)
From the Y'ssiʾath Miss'rayim to the building of the Bayith Riʾshon....................... 480 years (M'lochim ʾAlaf 6:1)
From the building of the Bayith Riʾshon to its destruction....................................... 410 years (T.B. Yomoʾ 9a)
From the destruction of the Bayith Riʾshon to the building of the Bayith Sheni...... 70 years (Yir'm'yohu 29:10)
From the building of the Bayith Sheni to its destruction.......................................... 420 years (T.B. Yomoʾ 9a)
From the destruction of the Bayith Sheni to the present year................................... 1,954 years (5782-3828 AM)
—From the creation of the Adam to the present year............................................... 5,782 years​

*The 400 years began just as soon as ʾAvrom ʾOvinu had any descendants, so that B'reshıth 15:13 was fulfilled in the Exodus—from the birth of Yiss'hoq (15th Nison, 2048 AM) to the Exodus (15th Nison, 2448 AM) was 400 years. ʾAvrohom's descendants (beginning with Yiss'hoq, Yaʿaqov's father, who was born 400 years earlier) had indeed been גֵר . . . בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא לָהֶם 'strangers . . . in lands that were not their own': first K'naʿan, then Horon, then K'naʿan again, and finally Miss'rayim.

Yaʿaqov and his descendants were not in Miss'rayim for anything like 400 years. This is clear to anyone who has actually studied what the [Hebrew] Torah says, because (as the medieval commentator Rash"i points out in his note on B'reshıth 15:13), Lewi's son Q'hoth is listed in B'reshıth 46:11 among Yaʿaqov's small family of seventy souls who emigrated to Miss'rayim; and we read in Sh'moth 6:18 and 6:20 that Q'hoth lived to be 133 years of age and ʿAm'rom (who was Q'hoth's son) died at the age of 137 years. Furthermore, Moshah (who was ʿAm'rom's son) was 80 years of age at the time of the Exodus (Sh'moth 7:7), which means that the combined lifetimes of Q'hoth (133) and ʿAm'rom (137), and the first 80 years of Moshah Rabbenu's life—i.e., the part that elapsed before the Exodus—only come to 350 years in total. Further, the years that Q'hoth lived before Yaʿaqov's migration to Miss'rayim and after ʿAm'rom was born, and those that ʿAm'rom lived after Moshah was born, all have to be deduced from these 350 years to find the actual period of time spent in Miss'rayim (incidentally, the period of slavery was actually quite short and lasted no more than 116 years: 2332-2448 לִבְרִיאַת הָעולָם).

So what is going on here? In B'reshıth 15:13, Hashem tells ʾAvrom (this was before Hashem changed his name to ʾAvrohom) that his zaraʿ or 'progeny' were going to live in lands that were not their own for 400 years, and that during that time (but not necessarily for all of it) they would be enslaved and persecuted. It turns out that, in fact, it was only 210 years from Yaʿaqov's migration to Miss'rayim to join Yosef until the Exodus: So 60 years from the birth of Yiss'hoq to the birth of Yaʿaqov (B'reshıth 25:27), 130 years from the birth of Yaʿaqov to his migration to Miss'rayim (B'reshıth 47:9), and 210 years from then to the Exodus (hinted at in B'reshıth 42:2 as Yaʿaqov instructs his sons to רְדוּ r'dhu 'descend' to Miss'rayim for food—רְדוּ has a numerical value of 210!). The 400 years began just as soon as ʾAvrom had any zaraʿ (Yiss'hoq); Hashem made references to ʾAvrom's zaraʿ many times, both before and after this incident (B'reshıth 13:16, 15:5, 15:13, 17:7, 17:10, 22:17-18), a term that He defined (in the context of His promises to ʾAvrom) in B'reshıth 21:12 (כִּי בְיִצְחָק יִקָּרֵא לְךָ זָרַע '[your descendants] through Yiss'hoq will be your zaraʿ'—and so Yish'moʿel is rejected as ʾAvrom's heir and successor).

The Tanach repeatedly speaks of ʾAvrohom ʾOvinu and all his family 'living as gerim ['strangers']' starting from the moment that Yiss'hoq was born. For example,

(i) immediately after Yiss'hoq's birth in B'reshıth 21:5, the Torah says: וַיָּגָר אַבְרָהָם בְּאֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים יָמִים רַבִּים 'ʾAvrohom lived as a stranger [or 'sojourned'] for many years in the land of the P'lish'ṭim' (B'reshıth 21:34);
(ii) Yiss'hoq was told by Hashem: גּוּר בָּאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת 'Live as a stranger [or 'sojourn'] in this land...' (B'reshıth 26:3);
(iii) Tahillim 105:23 writes poetically: וְיַעֲקֹב גָּר בְּאֶרֶץ־חָם '...Yaʿaqov lived as a stranger [or 'sojourned'] in the land of Hom'—Egypt is identified with Hom because Miss'rayim was one of the sons of No'ah's youngest son, Hom (B'reshıth 10:6), and Miss'rayim is also the Hebrew name for Egypt;
(iv) upon their arrival in Miss'rayim, Yaʿaqov's sons told the Parʿoh: לָגוּר בָּאָרֶץ בָּאנוּ 'We have come to live as strangers [or 'to sojourn'] in your land...' (B'reshıth 47:4); and
(v) when the Parʿoh asked Yaʿaqov how old he was, the patriarch described the whole of his life as מְגוּרַי m'ghurai—literally, 'my times of living as a stranger [or 'my sojourns']' (B'reshıth 47:8-9).​

So, we see that the term 'living as a ger ['stranger']' is applied by the Scriptures on numerous occasions starting from the time of Yiss'hoq's birth to the whole of Yaʿaqov's family. It is therefore reasonable to translate B'reshıth 15:13 as follows:

:וַיֹּאמֶר לְאַבְרָם יָדֹעַ תֵּדַע כִּי־גֵר יִהְיֶה זַרְעֲךָ בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא לָהֶם וַעֲבָדוּם וְעִנּוּ אֹתָם אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה​

He then said to ʾAvrom, 'Know with certainty that your zaraʿ will be strangers in lands that will not be their own for 400 years, and they [your zaraʿ] will serve them [the people of those lands] and they [the people of those lands] will persecute them [your zaraʿ].'

ʾAvrom's זֶרַע 'descendants' were going to live as גֵר 'strangers' for 400 years in many lands—not just Miss'rayim—that were not going to be לָהֶם 'their own', and they were going to be enslaved by the people of at least one of those אֶרֶץ 'lands' for part, but not necessarily all, of that time. And that is exactly what happened. There were 1,948 years from Hashem's creation of the primordial Adam to the birth of ʾAvrom (as can be calculated from the information recorded in the first eleven chapters of B'reshιth), and 100 years from the birth of ʾAvrom to the birth of Yiss'hoq (B'reshιth 21:5)—2048 AM. There were 60 years from the birth of Yiss'hoq to the birth of Yaʿaqov (B'reshıth 25:27), and 130 years from the birth of Yaʿaqov to his migration to Missrayim (B'reshıth 47:9)—2238 AM. Similarly, there were 210 years between Yaʿaqov's migration to Miss'rayim (2238 AM) and the Exodus (2448 AM), and—as mentioned above—the period of slavery was actually quite short and lasted no more than 116 years (2332-2448 AM). So, from the birth of Yiss'hoq (15th Nison, 2048 AM) to the Exodus (15th Nison, 2448 AM) was 400 years. It is currently 13th Nison, 5782 AM; and tonight, 14th Nison, is ʿArav Pasah.

 

[Koichos]

in genesis 1 it is found the phrase "the morning and the evening"

and as you quoted before "I will pass through the land of Egypt tonight," it is clear to me God makes a distinguished difference between Day and Night as it pertains to how he creates. So God created something that would affect the firstborn of those who held him and his people captive...

The Creation process is divided by B'reshıth into six יָמִים yomim (plural of יוֹם yom). The English translation of יוֹם yom is a 'day', but even in English that word can be used in at least four different senses—

(i) the 24-hour period of the Earth's rotation;
(ii) a period roughly half of that time (more in summer and less in winter) when the Sun is above the horizon and it is daylight;
(iii) a period in history (as, for example, in the expression: 'in Julius Caesar's day'; and
(iv) an indeterminate, usually very long, time-interval of unspecified duration (i.e., an 'age' or an 'era')​

—and the Hebrew word יוֹם yom can have all the same meanings as the English word 'day', too. It can also have an additional fifth meaning, especially when used in the plural (yomim): 'year'. Though not specifically Hebrew, the Riddle of the Sphinx (answered correctly by Oedipus) testifies to the fact that the metaphoric application of 'morning' and 'evening' to the earlier and later parts of a much longer period of time than one single, 24-hour day was known and used in antiquity.

Thus, the Creation of the World lasted for six 'ages' (or 'eras') of unspecified (but certainly very long) duration, leading up to the creation of the primeval Adam; and 5,782 years have elapsed from then until now. This is all that can be deduced from the Tanach, which gives no indication whatsoever of how long the שֵׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְּרֵאשִׁית sheshath y'mé b'reshıth lasted; because the Adam was created right at the end of the creation process, and we are not told how long that lasted (*note that one should not be misled by the references to 'evening' and 'morning' because it is possible, even in contemporary usage, to refer to 'the dawn of a new age'). Time starts on 1st Tishri, the day Hashem created the Adam, so that 25th ʾAlul is the anniversary of the creation process. We therefore celebrate Roʾsh Hashonoh (the new year for calendar years) on 1st Tishri (day 6) as opposed to 25th ʾAlul (day 1) because that is when time began from Man's perspective, on 1st Tishri, day 6.

The concept of a 'day' was meaningless before the sun's creation during the 'fourth יוֹם yom', for the simple reason that the only way a human being can be conscious of the passage of 'days' is by observing the sun's motion through the sky. The Tanach gives no information at all from which the age of the Earth can be determined; the durations of the 'Six Eras of Creation' are unspecified and, consequently, indeterminate. Without the Sun, the Moon and the stars, there can be no days; human beings are only aware of the Earth's diurnal rotation on its axis because of the observed apparent rotation of the objects in the sky, seemingly around the Earth. If there were no Sun, Moon or stars, as was the case before the 'Fourth Era of Creation', we would not and could not even be conscious of the Earth's rotation. One might ask: 'Okay then, if the 'sun' was not created until the 'fourth יוֹם yom', from where did the 'Light' come?' This question is answered by Mish'lei 6:23.

so the question then becomes is the exodus something that happened as a distinct event...

Absolutely; as was Hashem's 'personal appearance' at Mount Horev in the Sinai desert that took place on a Shovuʿoth morning, 6th Siwon 2488, seven weeks after we left Egypt, which was a one-off, a unique event in history which will never occur again—either involving us or any other nation of human beings for that matter. There is also no need for confusion regarding the seqeunce of events in the Torah after the Exodus, though that would have to wait until after Pasah, if you are interested. Interestingly, the service that we have today includes a short paragraph that minutely dissects Sh'moth 13:8 word-by-word and comes to the conclusion that 'telling' the Haggodhoh was actually the whole purpose of the Exodus:

וְהִגַּדְתָּ לְבִנְךָ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לֵאמֹר 'בַּעֲבוּר זֶה עָשָׂה ה׳ לִי בְּצֵאתִי מִמִּצְרָיִם' '׃'
!'יָכוֹל מֵרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר 'בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא
!'אִי בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, יָכוֹל מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר 'בַּעֲבוּר זֶה
!בַּעֲבוּר זֶה לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַצָּה וּמָרוֹר מֻנָּחִים לְפָנֶיךָ עַל שֻׁלְחָנֶךָ​

'On that day you are to tell your son, '[It was] for the sake of this [ceremony that] Hashem acted on my behalf when I emerged from Egypt!' '
Perhaps one should even start doing this [telling his son about it] from the beginning of the month? No, because the verse says 'on that day'!
But, as it says 'on that day', perhaps one should do it while it is still daytime? No, because it says 'For the sake of this [ceremony]'!
One can only say 'For the sake of this [ceremony]' at the moment when massoh and bitter vegetables are physically lying in front of him on his table!

Thus we recite a special b'rochoh at the Sedar thanking Hashem for freeing us from Egypt (בָּרוּךְ... אֲשֶׁר גְּאָלָנוּ וְגָאַל אֶת אֲבוֹתֵינוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם 'Blessed is He that freed us and our ancestors from Egypt...').

 

[DoubleClutch]

Perhaps you have forgotten (or were never aware) that אֱלֹהִים can also refer to '[foreign] gods'; the following is an example from the 2nd of the 'Ten Utterances' in the first 14 verses of Sh'moth, chapter 20, which the Torah itself (Sh'moth 34:28 and D'vorim 4:13, 10:14) refers to as עַשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים ʿasarath had'vorim: traditionally 'the Ten Things' (or 'Words', or 'Statements', or 'Sayings', or 'Utterances'), but more precisely 'Ten of the Things' ('Words', 'Statements', 'Sayings', 'Utterances').
*Taken from the officially recognized targum of the Torah which provides a continuous verse-by-verse interpretive translation of the public Scriptural readings that form a central part of our communal prayer services.

I invite you to consider the following verses:
In all of these verses apart from Sh'muʾel ʾAlaf 4:8, the noun אֱלֹהִים ʾalohim is qualified by the plural adjective אֲחֵרִים ʾaherim (and in Sh'muʾel ʾAlaf 4:8 it is qualified by the plural adjective הָאֲדִּירִים hoʾaddirim, the plural pronoun הֵם hem and the plural verb הַמַּכִּים ha-makkim), so that אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים ʾalohim aherim means 'other [false] deities'. אֱלֹהִים is a plural form, even though it is often singular in meaning—with more than 1,100 cases of אֱלֹהִים governing a singular verb-inflection.

'Singular' and 'plural' forms are used in Hebrew in quite a different way from how they are used in English; thus, it can never be inferred that an individual is meant just because the singular form of a noun is used. For example, the Holy Titles אֲדֹנָי ʾadhonoy 'my Master' and אֱלֹהִים ʾalohim 'God'—together with their derivative forms, such as אֲדֹנֵינוּ ʾadhoneinu 'our Master' and אֱלֹהֵיכֶם ʾaloheicham 'your God'—are exceptions to this generalization, but are invariably identified as singular by the use of singular verbs; in particular, throughout the first division of our Torah (which consistently calls Him אֱלֹהִים ʾalohim; we are not introduced to the Sacred Name until the fourth verse of the second chapter), the verbs are all singular
The corresponding plural forms of these verbs (which are NOT used) are:

In fact, the word הַשֵּׁם hashem is of Biblical origin and occurs in reference to the Explicit Name:
The sentence passed on the 'son of the Yisrʾelith woman' was severe:
It should be noted that שֵׁם shem is used twice in Wayyiq'roʾ 24:16 (i. וְנֹקֵב שֵׁם־ה׳ 'he uttered [the] Name YUDH, HEʾ, WOW, HEʾ' and ii. בְּנָקְבוֹ שֵׁם 'for his utterance of [the] Name'). The 'son of the Yisrʾelith woman'—whose name is not recorded, although his mother's name (Sh'lomith daughter of Di'v'ri, from the tribe Don) is—actually committed two separate offences: (i) he spoke the Four-Lettered Divine 'Name', and (ii) he cursed It; he was executed for the first of these two crimes.

it’s actually perfect timing for this response. Earlier this week I was talking to some type of Jew/Hebrew Israelite/Rasta etc.... who knows what they really believe

anyways, the subject was the name of God in the Torah or as the Jews know him as. I was trying to tell him like you said, YHWH wasn’t spoken by people, neither was Yahweh or Jehovah or Jah or Yah as people today like to call God for whatever reason

is this correct? Because you just showed me there is serious repercussions and punishment for saying “the name” back then among the Israelites

so the I ask you TODAY do you or other Orthodox Jews ever use the terms “ Yahweh or Jehovah or Jah or Yah” in prayer or just in reference to the scriptures/teachings etc....

Is it still taken as seriously as an offense? Can “the name” even be pronounced correctly?

how do you and others react to other religions who freely use the name of God (not to curse it) but just casually like in music for example?

Or doest it even mean anything in today’s time compared to how it did Israelite people in the Torah?

And you say

“ʾAllah is a perfectly acceptable Arabic title for Hashem, ”

but Muslims have no conception of “hashem” meaning “the name” which points to YHWH

There’s no connection between Allah and YHWH implied anywhere in the Quran as you show it exists with Arabic Jewish communities (unless someone wants to prove otherwise) because, among Muslims, that would jeopardize their entire identity and contradict the ideology of their religion.

And I’ll add that the writers of the Quran of today didn’t mention YHWH or even use the same language of the Hebrew Bible (even though early Muslims probably knew it) because they wanted to distinguish themselves from Jews and their “Arab” God Allah from non Arabs for many reasons that have less to do with religion and more to do with power and conquest.​

plus the jews during Muhammad’s time (and still today) weren’t accepting of any “new” teachings or prophets they obviously didn’t need.... besides Jesus of course

 

[Tair]

"57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.”

58 And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith." ~ Matthew 13:57-58


"27 But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.”

28 “Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.”

29 “Come,” he said.

Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!”

31 Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?” ~ Matthew 14:27-31

I will summarize Judges 6-7:
Gideon - because he was the weakest in his father's house - had insecurities. G-d came to Gideon and referred to him as a mighty man of valor and said He was with Gideon. Gideon being insecure decided to test G-d three different times (I won't go through the tests). The point I am trying to get to ultimately is that Gideon did not trust G-d to understand that G-d was working through him. Gideon was so insecure that he thought G-d was being untruthful, so Gideon wanted tests of verification that G-d was with him. Even though it isn't explicitly stated, Gideon wasted time because of his insecurity. It took a bit longer for him to out against the Midianites.

In Numbers w/ the Story of Balaam:
The same sort of trust issues occurs in Numbers with Balaam. Balaam knows what G-d has asked of him but still wants the adulation of man so instead of telling the princes to go, he asks them to stay. And because of his lack of faith, Balaam's donkey sees the Angels in the alley, but Balaam cannot see the Angels at all, so he gets off his donkey and begins to beat it. That is when G-d had to open Balaam's eyes to show him his little faith in G-d.


Faith is a prerequisite for seeing reality because G-d is reality. So, I don't believe we live in a world of illusion necessarily, I think we create the illusion by removing ourselves from the source.

 

[Marks]

@MMS

 

[MMS]

@MMS

im watching this now but i couldnt help but think about the concept of "reductionist thinking"

and thought, what would "accretionist thinking" be like if accretion is an antonym

In orthodoxy, negative or apopthatic theology is the accepted mode of contemplating God (declaring what God is not)
Apophatic theology - Wikipedia

the opposite is Cataphatic which is using only positive affirmations

which is strange because at the heart of how I feel, cataphatic feels like the safest mode of contemplation but look here:

To speak of God or the divine kataphatically is thought by some to be by its nature a form of limiting to God or divine. This was one of the core tenets of the works of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. By defining what God or the divine is we limit the unlimited. A kataphatic way to express God would be that God is love. The apophatic way would be to state that God is not hate (although such description can be accused of the same dualism). Or to say that God is not love, as he transcends even our notion of love. Ultimately, one would come to remove even the notion of the Trinity, or of saying that God is one, because The Divine is above numberhood. That God is beyond all duality because God contains within himself all things and that God is beyond all things. The apophatic way as taught by Saint Dionysus was to remove any conceptual understanding of God that could become all-encompassing, since in its limitedness that concept would begin to force the fallen understanding of mankind onto the absolute and divine.

Eastern Orthodoxy[edit]
In the Eastern Orthodox Church, kataphatic theology can lead to some knowledge of God but in an imperfect way. The perfect and only way which is fitting in regard of God is the apophatic way, as the kataphatic way has as its object that which exist, but God is beyond all existing.[3]

So a quandary arises, if "kataphatic theology" is bad because it limits God by description, then how is apopthatic any different when it also limits God by description

have objective reality or being.

So in essence, the real (existing) and "unreal"(beyond existing) are really just assumptions by our sight and sensory

not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
"a matter of objective fact"

this is why I said earlier in the thread about descriptive thinking seems to be inherently destructive, you basically have folks that contemplate on a piecemeal level (as per your video) and then take the piecemeal to construct a jenga like understanding when the real understanding is likely whole in nature. Otherwise, the belief in Gods omnipotence must also be piecemeal....which I doubt heavily. The real culprit has to be language as the limiter for our thoughts and sense. Yet in this same thread there could be otherworldly implications with just text

@Koichos why are there dreidels that have more than 4 sides?

PA scholar invents 20-sided dreidel

 

[MMS]

@Koichos

This is something ive been heavily grappling with
Philo - Wikipedia

Philo was more fluent in Greek than in Hebrew and read the Jewish Scriptures chiefly from the Septuagint, a Koine Greek translation of Hebraic texts later compiled as the Hebrew Bible and the deuterocanonical books.[48]

The Septuagint translates the phrase מַלְאַךְ (the name) (Malakh (the name), lit. '"Messenger of Yahweh"') as ἄγγελος Κυρίου (ángelos Kyríou, lit. '"angel of the Lord"').[49] Philo identified the angel of the Lord (in the singular) with the Logos.[50][51] Peter Schäfer argues that Philo's Logos was derived from his understanding of the "postbiblical Wisdom literature, in particular the Wisdom of Solomon".[52] The Wisdom of Solomon is a Jewish work composed in Alexandria, Egypt, around the 1st century BCE, with the aim of bolstering the faith of the Jewish community in a hostile Greek world. It is one of the seven Sapiential or wisdom books included within the Septuagint.

The extent of Philo's knowledge of Hebrew is debated. His numerous etymologies of Hebrew names—which are along the lines of the etymologic midrash to Genesis and of the earlier rabbinism, although not modern Hebrew philology—suggest some familiarity.[53] Philo offers for some names three or four etymologies, sometimes including the correct Hebrew root (e.g., יָרַד, yarád, lit. '"(to) descend"' as the origin of the name Jordan). However, his works do not display much understanding of Hebrew grammar, and they tend to follow the translation of the Septuagint more closely than the Hebrew version.

based on this thread and the other one in the root, it does seem like a potentially big oversight here especially if my egyptian conjecture is true...

yet to me, the only reason that terminology would matter is based on the readers/writers intent on the passages containing the name

 

[MMS]

@Marks

Cardiac torsion and electromagnetic fields: the cardiac bioinformation hypothesis - PubMed

Abstract
Although in physiology the heart is often referred to as a simple piston pump, there are in fact two additional features that are integral to cardiac physiology and function. First, the heart as it contracts in systole, also rotates and produces torsion due to the structure of the myocardium. Second, the heart produces a significant electromagnetic field with each contraction due to the coordinated depolarization of myocytes producing a current flow. Unlike the electrocardiogram, the magnetic field is not limited to volume conduction and extends outside the body. The therapeutic potential for interaction of this cardioelectromagnetic field both within and outside the body is largely unexplored. It is our hypothesis that the heart functions as a generator of bioinformation that is central to normative functioning of body. The source of this bioinformation is based on: (1) vortex blood flow in the left ventricle; (2) a cardiac electromagnetic field and both; (3) heart sounds; and (4) pulse pressure which produce frequency and amplitude information. Thus, there is a multidimensional role for the heart in physiology and biopsychosocial dynamics. Recognition of these cardiac properties may result in significant implications for new therapies for cardiovascular disease based on increasing cardiac energy efficiency (coherence) and bioinformation from the cardioelectromagnetic field. Research studies to test this hypothesis are suggested.

someone on my feed said "people can literally feel people's electric field". Reading this made me think of eastern meditative practices and that perhaps there are physical reasons for the choices of sages to sit still.

since my engineering days, I always felt the Maxwell equations the most elegant theory I've ever come across in school.

 

[Marks]

@Marks

Cardiac torsion and electromagnetic fields: the cardiac bioinformation hypothesis - PubMed


someone on my feed said "people can literally feel people's electric field". Reading this made me think of eastern meditative practices and that perhaps there are physical reasons for the choices of sages to sit still.

Since my engineering days, I always felt the Maxwell equations the most elegant theory I've ever come across in school.

I've been deep down some weird esoteric holes and one of the common things you see a lot is that life is light/electric. Something along those lines. I've even seen stuff saying its not eating or drinking that keeps us a live but breathing that takes top priority, that the lungs are the most important organ in your body. The idea that in breath and out breaht is both a literal and metaphorical furnace.

Wild to read this stuff ofc and I'm not saying I believe it but like you said, so many ancient sages put a lot of importance on sitting still, on the breath and so on.

 

[MMS]

I've been deep down some weird esoteric holes and one of the common things you see a lot is that life is light/electric. Something along those lines. I've even seen stuff saying its not eating or drinking that keeps us a live but breathing that takes top priority, that the lungs are the most important organ in your body. The idea that in breath and out breaht is both a literal and metaphorical furnace.

Wild to read this stuff ofc and I'm not saying I believe it but like you said, so many ancient sages put a lot of importance on sitting still, on the breath and so on.

yeah, from seeing some of the things ive seen since coming into this thread everything man does is an attempt to build upon what is already established. Nature displays these divine rhythms basically everywhere you look (rather than calling them patterns)

my theory now is somewhat along the lines of: How can we become purely rhythmic in ways everything I know from biochemistry is that on the inside our bodies work more in a rhythm than in discrete steps, otherwise we would be more like Pinocchio than real.

even despite all the different takes by @Koichos yourself, @DoubleClutch and others I keep coming back to my "liturgical" understanding. It's liberating especially when I see the issues believers have standing IN their belief. The pastoral services create more pastors, but liturgical services create liturgists (rhythmic worship). Before saying this is only an orthodox christian thing as far as I know this is observed in Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism etc

so from the inside looking out, pastoral understanding might be a big culprit with belief. But I could be wrong

i just know i'll start singing without knowing why "I will not kiss thee as did Judas, but like the thief, I will confess to you: 'O Lord, Remember me when You come into Your kingdom."

everyday that whirlwind number
Gematria value of the eucharist is 609 - English, Hebrew and Simple Gematria Calculator Values