tenacious one are you!?!?
I don't think the issue is whether I like that or not. Puzzling.
No, neither does 'ra-son of'.
you like your idea (water) because it fits an old story derived by a religious point of view
1. The 'opinion' is based upon the Egyptian language.
Not unless yo provide the symbols as Mo-ses are not egyptian words; them is english symbolism (letters)
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.
then you've been opened up to the alternative; now we both have something (NEW) to observe as a possibility
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?
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')
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.
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)
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*
Oh boy........... i could say; "prove moses existed outside of torah" and just shut down the whole conversation.
1. Should have said that 10 posts ago.
2. Moses did not start the religion, that would have been Abraham.
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.
3. Abraham wasn't from Africa, he was from Sumeria.
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.
