Ararat = Turkey / South Africa or North Africa? Euphrates - Damascus

Ararat = Turkey / South Africa or North Africa? Euphrates - Damascus - Land of Aram discussion

Рет қаралды 751

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 41

@BethlehemHeat 6 ай бұрын

Peace be with you Bro😊 So.... Mesopotamia/ Aramnaharam which means (The Land of Two Rivers) & is also "Syria"....... makes me think of the 'Niger' & 'Benue' confluence in Nigeria... (I believe the river Benue is part of the river Nile which i believe is the Tigris) Two great rivers come together and flows down into the Atlantic... the 'Euphrates' & the 'Tigris'..... The confluence is even on the coat of arms of the country... it looks like a "Y".... check it out😊 Kind regards

@ubongumoh1750 6 ай бұрын

The ancient hebrew spelling of Damascus has the "sek" ending and the proper translation should read Damasek rather than Damascus. Please check the ancient hebrew hieroglyphic version of the old testament to confirm this.

@howcanibefree7993 6 ай бұрын

Peace be with you too. I did look at the coat of arms for Nigeria. That is very interesting. Thank you for sharing what you believe. Blessings

@khosbyshezi6274 6 ай бұрын

Abram was commanded to get out of his fathers land and go to the promise land. So putting Aram in South Africa will contradict Subsahara as promised land.

@K...O....quake.. 6 ай бұрын

Lots of evidence under this title on R umble ... "Biblical land of Eden, Shem and Israel (Canaan)"

@khosbyshezi6274 6 ай бұрын

About history of Mongol , please check name Stillers

@chrischarles9213 6 ай бұрын

The book of ezekiel chapter 36 is all about Africa and the return of the children of Israel that are in exile according to the book of Deuteronomy, 28:68

@EdgarWaYah 5 ай бұрын

If you think about it, the mongol expansion can be considered modern history.. this is after cities were renamed and transplanted. it does not affect out thesis.

@howcanibefree7993 5 ай бұрын

Thank you Edgar. That is worth considering.

@panaceasolutions5031 6 ай бұрын

The story in Genesis 13:1 is surely talking of a region of south of Egypt. But before we dig into that let's at once attempt an explanation of the verses you have provided, However as you have adequately put; this is no trivial matter and the many translations make it no less simple as they all add a perspective or two of their own in some places. Nonetheless, Jesus Christ said, "You will know them by their fruits" in Mat 7:16. Though He applied it to false prophets, we shall apply it to find the Truth (which is really the same thing). Frist, Genesis 15:18 "... from Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates-". Even in this verse, the footnotes translate "Wadi" as "river" nonetheless, we shall ask, where is this great river, the Euphrates? If indeed, it is in ME or Mesopotamia as commonly understood then, the verse in Genesis 13:1 may indeed refer to "the south" as being "the Negev (southern modern Israel)". But if it were that simple! Let's at once turn the pages to the story of Exodus, one of the most debated stories of all times. Though the topic is large, I shall make it as brief as possible, so don't get board, stay tuned! Though we may never know the pathways the Israelites took to get to the land of milk and honey, we can pin point the direction of entry because it's stated in the book of Joshua chapter 1 verse 4 in plain language and it states, "From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast." KJV. The word "this Lebanon" implies that they/Israelites are already standing on the wilderness of Lebanon and they are about to enter the promised land. So God is telling Joshua about the land he is going to inherit. Right off the bat we have a problem with the modern map, since now if they are in "Lebanon" a place north of modern Israel, then why would they need to cross the Jordan as it is made evident in later stories? Perhaps, "Lebanon" is not modern day "Lebanon"! FYI "Lebanon" is not a country, there never was a country by that name in biblical times, the word is Ethiopic and it's a topographic term, it means, "mountainous region covered with trees". So if they are standing on Lebanon, then the measurement is clearly taken from the perspective of Lebanon, which takes the Euphrates towards the east not the west. So the statement is like saying, "From here to there on the west", which then begs us to question if that is so, then how come Euphrates is on the west? Isn't it supposed to be on the east? Some other translations such as NIV would have it so that, this "great river" is the Mediterranean sea which is on the west. For it reads, "Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates-all the Hittite country-to the Mediterranean Sea in the west". I shall soon show you that this verse is an altercation of the original, since it paradoxes the continued story in verse 15 of the same chapter, and it reads; "...until the Lord gives them rest, as he has done for you, and until they too have taken possession of the land the Lord your God is giving them. After that, you may go back and occupy your own land, which Moses the servant of the Lord gave you east of the Jordan toward the sunrise.” This verse says it all, and I took it form NIV, KJV will leave you breathless. So the promised land is East of Jordan, how can this be? Going back at the NIV version of verse 4, does that make sense? It won't because, the NIV is stating that they came from the wilderness/desert to Lebanon, i.e. east to west, while the verse in 15 clearly states it's from west to east. Sufficed to say, this is where we catch them, at the door! By the current theory, this won't fit, at all!!! The Israelites are supposed to cross the Jordan from east to west, but the Scriptures testify that they had done it in the opposite way, i.e. west to east, towards the sunrise. Suppose, the Jordan is the Nile, if so, then east of Jordan is the promised land! Indeed the Jordan is the Nile, but how? In verse 3:15 of Joshua we read, "And as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water, (for Jordan overfloweth all his banks all the time of harvest,)..." KJV. And this is from Wiki, "The flooding of the Nile has been an important natural cycle in Nubia and Egypt since ancient times... The flooding of the Nile was poetically described in myth as Isis's tears of sorrow for Osiris when killed by his brother Set." titled Flooding of the Nile. Notice the similarity? In fact it's the same. Not to forget the fact that the Nile clearly flows from south to north, which can be used to divide the lands into east and west as the Scripture did! Also, In Genesis 2, the river that encompass the land of Ethiopia, the Gihon is connected to the other river Euphrates! How can that be? Ethiopia is in Africa, how does the ME river encompass that or even remotely connected to it? Not at all, perhaps the Scriptures are speaking of a different river. Let me add to you that word for "the great river" in Ethiopic is "Abay" which literally means that! And "Abay" is the river Nile, i.e. the Blue Nile. This Nile it appears, had many names. Finally let me return to the topic of Genesis 13:1, about the travels of Abraham up south. The next verse, 13:2 goes something like this, "Abram had become very wealthy in livestock and in silver and gold". It's common sense to deduce that livestock need water and there is not much water in the "Negev", thus can't be hospitable to animals; on the contrary up south of Egypt is the source of the Nile and water tower of Africa. Not to mention East Africa, i.e. Ethiopia rank's first in Africa in livestock quantity. This is inline to what is stated in verses 13:2. Silver and Gold too are not found in Negev and this is a geologic fact. But East Africa, beginning with Nubia, situation becomes different. In fact some say, Ethiopia means Land of Gold while others claim it's Nubia either cases, East Africa is the Land of Gold, Havilah. Thus with verse 1:2 we can fundamentally refute any claims about the Negev as being somewhat erroneous, since nothing of what is stated exists! Least I shall leave you with this verse from Isaiah 43:3 "For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee." Think about this verse, what's it saying! Did not Israel come out of Egypt? Thus Egypt for thy ransom. But why is He/The Lord God, giving Ethiopia and Saba to Jacob? Is that his inheritance? Some versions render the word "Ethiopia" as "Cush" typical, nonetheless, we shall ask, why is God giving Cush as Israel's inheritance? And Saba, Is that Yemen or Sudan? Either cases these are neighbors to Ethiopia or Cush if you like. Now is Ethiopia really Cush? Which is why the Psalmist wrote, "Princes shall come forth out of Egypt; Ethiopia shall soon stretch forth her hands unto God," in 68:31. Why are the Princes coming forth from Egypt, why will Ethiopia Stretch forth her hands? In surrender? or Worship? There are many topics to discuss but this is where I take a leave and pause. I hope you find this informative. And thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions, it's been a wonderful experience. In summary, you have suggested Euphrates could be in West Africa then the statment "from the river of Egypt to the great river Euphrates..." might as well mean from East to west, as in West Africa to East. Thank you.

@howcanibefree7993 6 ай бұрын

I did read your comment. Very interesting. Thank you for sharing that with us.