That speaks of Ahmose I. Making my previous points more relevant. Ahmose I didn't enslave any mass group he did however run the hyksos out of Egypt without apology..being an exodus of sorts. There is no other historical evidence of any mass exodus. Either the Hebrews are the Egyptians or the Hebrews are the Hyksos or the Hebrews didn't exist based on the above for me...all interesting none classical concepts or 'not what we were taught.' I have to rely on the historical record and not only scripture....
2/9/2019 5:39:12 AM
Egyptian scribes of Ahmose I and Thutmoses III wrote boastfully of campaigns in the Levant, resulting in captured prisoners being enslaved in Egypt. Various descriptions perfectly match scenes in the Passover Haggadah.
Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA
2/9/2019 8:25:56 AM
This isn't the full story. This was the HYKSOS Ahmose had chased out of Egypt into Syria Nubia and surrounding places. In the context of being AFTER the Hyksos invasion of Egypt and subsequent overthrowing. Again, none biblical descriptions of the said events of the exodus and Israelite captivity.
2/9/2019 9:52:04 AM
Suffice to say that there's plenty of ambiguity in the available accounts of events that occurred two thousand years ago. As the best scholars will admit: we just don't know all of the details or answers, and there's more often than not no dispositive evidence of a specific event in an historical record which is two millennia old and full of gaps (i.e., there are all kinds of substantial occurrences which transpired in ancient history for which we have no documentation).
Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA
2/9/2019 1:29:30 PM
These events would be 4-6 thousand years old based off the Biblical timeline. Some things cannot be proven with physical evidence nor disproven such as the vague question 'is there a God?' I would strongly suggest this isn't that. The evidence we have in the historical record suggests that either this didn't happen what so ever and is all just a story. Or. If it did happen it didn't happen in the way the bible describes such as scale etc. Why is this important? Because for many bible literalists including fellow African RASTAFARI- this has lead to a general dislike of Egypt / Ancient Kemet. For some such as the black Hebrew Israelites it has lead to a general dislike of Africans full stop. Its important to know if at the time, the 'Wicked Pharoah' wasn't actually an Egyptian and was a New Kingdom invader or whether the Israelites themselves were invaders or whether the whole thing is allegory. I believe Ancient Kemet is as much black history if not MORESO than so called Israelite history. And for MANY black bible literalists all InI are trying to do is follow I people's story. I know stories of racial divide from long ago re not important to you Nesta but to many conscious black people such as Rastafari Israelite Muslim Moor and so on, these things are of great importance whether you agree with the idea of not.
2/9/2019 6:26:13 PM
Love and DEEP RAspect unto you brothah Garveys!
2/10/2019 3:16:20 AM
I think you're trying to make too much hay out of weak attempts to independently reconstruct events that are buried in the sands of time. You cannot go about "disproving" the Bible the way you are doing it ("suggests" being the operative word here).
Trying to resolve or inflame matters that require a change of heart (e.g., abandonment of racial divisiveness and attainment of the vision of Inity espoused by Haile Selassie I) through the use of pseudo-academic pontification that masquerades as scholarship is not really helpful. When there are things that we simply cannot know for sure, the honest approach to scholarship (and to science) is to simply concede that uncertainty instead of trying to demonstrate through smoke and mirrors that which cannot be proven one way or the other.
Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA
2/10/2019 7:21:14 AM
Nobody is trying to disprove the bible, but literalism.
I am dispelling the idea that black people were Israelites enslaved by other black people in Egypt according to common interptetations of Bible script. Leading to a hatred of Ancient Kemet if not Africa as a whole by many brothers and sisters. You need to realise not everybody has Your understanding of race and you do not own the monopoly on how racial ideas should be viewed. These events are of critical importance to many groups of I people I could name.
Give thanks I.
There is nothing pseudo about my question. For Bible believers and literalists if the Bible mentions a Pharoah there is nothing wrong with asking to which Pharoah does it reference? Given the fact we have the full list of Pharoahs from Kemet.
Clearly Biblical history and ancient history itself are certified vast fields of study. Nothing pseudo or buried about it. Questions such as this can reach all the way to the highest level of learning research and critical thought, it is the very definition of scholarship. If you don't feel it is necessary to reason on it then simply, don't... but don't question the validity of such. The asking of who what when where and why behind any given 'story' is a cornerstone of intelligence.
What an unnecessary deflection....
Maybe Nesta should make a seperate thread on his thoughts about what I am 'trying to do.' Just as many others in this forum have done in the past. Yet one thing about Garveys Africa is consistency, in I mission to free the psyche of black people; from the effects of white supremacy.
Back to the question at hand.
Who was the Pharoah? What was the timeline? Who were the Israelites? For Bible studiers only and InI fully buried in the sand of time lol
2/10/2019 8:12:42 AM
I question not the validity of history scholarship, but of attempts to portray foregone-conclusion-serving speculation based upon cherry-picked historical references as being definitive or akin to history scholarship (the best of which invariably addresses quite transparently its uncertainties, e.g., the shades of skin color of people referred to records thousands of years old).
2/10/2019 1:10:28 PM
I question not the validity of history scholarship, but of attempts to portray foregone-conclusion-serving speculation based upon cherry-picked historical references as being definitive or akin to history scholarship (the best of which invariably addresses quite transparently its uncertainties, e.g., the shades of skin color of people mentioned in records thousands of years old).