It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Israelites were pharaohs of Egypt

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Dear All,

Much of the biblical story does not make a great deal of sense in its present format. How do a tribe of beduin shepherds become so influential in world history? How does a beduin leader like Abraham manage to have 318 army officers and an 'unlimited' number of soldiers? This simply does not make sense.

The answer is that the truth has been deliberately covered up. In fact, the biblical patriarchs were actually the Hyksos Shepherd Pharaohs of Lower Egypt - thus the Israelites were actually native Egyptians. This is why most of the Hebrew language is based upon the ancient Egyptian language. This is also why Joseph was able to become prime minister of Egypt and high priest of Heliopolis, and why Moses was a prince of Egypt and one of their most sucessful army commanders.

Place the Torah (Old Testament) in an Egyptian context, and it all makes sense (at least in a historical manner). The Torah was actually the 'Day Book' (or diary) of the Lower Egyptian royal court, and nearly all of the biblical heros and kings were actually pharaohs of Egypt.

Is there a conspiracy to hide this information from the public? Yes, of course there is. Take a look at the following two histories. One is from the biblical account of the Exodus, the other is the account of the Hyksos Exodus which is taken from known Egyptian history.


THE HYKSOS PHARAOH'S EXODUS FROM EGYPT (top line)
THE ISRAELITES' EXODUS (bottom line)

They were known as shepherds. (Shepherd Kings)
They were known as shepherds.

A pharaoh of theirs was called Jacoba.
A leader of theirs was called Jacob.

They were involved in a war with the Theban Egyptians.
They were involved in a war with the Egyptians.

There were storms and darkness. (Tempest stele)
There were storms and darkness.

Some 500,000 were ejected from Egypt on a great exodus.
Some 500,000 were ejected from Egypt on a great exodus.

They set off from Pi-Ramesse (Avaris).
They set of from Pi-Ramesse.

They travelled to Jerusalem. (Manetho)
They travelled to Jerusalem.

They were a mighty military force.
They were a mighty military force.

They destroyed Jericho.
They destroyed Jericho.


So why were you not taught this at school? Even if it were introduced as an interesting discussion topic, why were you not informed that there was a very similar exodus event that is documented in the history of Egypt? There is a conspiracy, and it has covered up each and every aspect of the Bible's true meaning. (And there is much more evidence to come.)


Regards,

Ralph Ellis
Edfu




posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I must say that this is interesting. I had never heard any of it before. Do you have a source for any of this information? If you are correct, I can see where this could be important for Christians, Jews, and Muslims, since all three claim Abraham. Christians and the Jewish people through his son Isaac and the Muslim faith through his son Ishmael. Ishmael's mother, Hagar, is listed in the Bible as an Egyptian Servant girl.
Without any sources, however, I am sceptical at best.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
It's a controversial theory with some basis in fact. However, there's some issues with the theory.

We do know that the Hyksos were a SEMITIC people. The Arabs are another Semitic people, as were a lot of other people in the area. Semetic refers to the language, not a "race" or a faith.
en.wikipedia.org...

They seem to have been from the area of Palestine.
www.touregypt.net...

They were polytheists. The Tanach (Jewish scriptures) says they're Caananites. The "Jewish" theory isn't well supported by the evidence, I'm afraid. :
en.wikipedia.org...

And the list, I'm afraid, is mostly coincidental. The Hyskos introduce the bow and the horse and chariot (sorry... shepherds don't use those.)


They were known as shepherds. (Shepherd Kings)
They were known as shepherds.

EVERYbody at that time was a shepherd. This was an agrarian society.


A pharaoh of theirs was called Jacoba.
A leader of theirs was called Jacob.

Sorry...there's no "Jacoba" on the Egyptian King List. Any of them:
www.touregypt.net...

You can see the King List with the Pharoh's names and the cartouches here:
www.ancient-egypt.org...
...and here (Hyskos specific)
www.ancient-egypt.org...


They were involved in a war with the Theban Egyptians.
They were involved in a war with the Egyptians.

The Theban Egyptians are not the same as "all Egyptians."


There were storms and darkness. (Tempest stele)
There were storms and darkness.

Uhm, and this is different from other times... how? I can't think of a single place on Earth that doesn't have storms and darkness.


Some 500,000 were ejected from Egypt on a great exodus.
Some 500,000 were ejected from Egypt on a great exodus.

No records of an Egyptian exodus. Got source?


They set off from Pi-Ramesse (Avaris).
They set of from Pi-Ramesse.

Got a Biblical source for this?


They travelled to Jerusalem. (Manetho)
They travelled to Jerusalem.

Manetho was here chronicaling the Jews. Not the Hyskos.


They were a mighty military force.
They were a mighty military force.

Along with a good many other nations.


They destroyed Jericho.
They destroyed Jericho.

Scholars say there's some timeline problems:
www.christiancourier.com...


[edit on 29-8-2005 by Byrd]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Ralphellis2--yes-please, any sources would be appreciated.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Dear All,


>>I must say that this is interesting. I had never heard any of it before. Do you
>>have a source for any of this information? If you are correct, I can see where
>>this could be important for Christians, Jews, and Muslims

All sources are from original texts (Egyptian, Israelite and Greek), it is only the interpretation that differs. Yes, this would have large implications for orthodox theology.







>>We do know that the Hyksos were a SEMITIC people.
>>They seem to have been from the area of Palestine.

As was Abraham.





>>They (the Hyksos) were polytheists. The "Jewish" theory isn't well
>>supported by the evidence, I'm afraid.

As were the Jews - originally. The Israelite god was called Adhon, Yahweh, Elohim and Shadday, which were all separate gods at one point. Adhon is from the Egyptian Aton (Adon), the Sun god. Yahweh is from the Egyptian Yah, the Moon god. Eli became the Greek Eli (Heli), which formed the Greek Helios, or the Sun god once more. The Koran also makes it clear that Abraham worshipped the Sun and Moon. There was also a great deal of phallic worship in the Old Testament, as in 1Ki 15:13. You will note that modern translations will not say 'penis'. The Vulgate Bible comes closest, saying it was a 'priapus'.

The Hyksos-Israelites only became monotheist after the reforms of Pharaoh Akhenaton, who banned all idolatory and intituted a singlular hidden god (sound familliar?).








>>And the list, I'm afraid, is mostly coincidental. The Hyskos introduce the bow and
>>the horse and chariot (sorry... shepherds don't use those.)

Yes, but Abraham must have. Abraham had an army of about 32,000 infantry. Are you saying that they had no weapons?




>>EVERYbody at that time was a shepherd.
>>This was an agrarian society.

It had nothing to do with agriculture, it was all astrological. Shepherd means Aries, as the conversation between pharaoh and Joseph betrays. The constellations move every 2,000 years or so and Taurus had just given way to Aries (circa 1800 BC). This is why Joseph was comparing bulls with sheep and why Moses had so much trouble with bull-worshippers.

The same happened in 10AD, when Aries gave way to Pisces. This is why Jesus was born as a Lamb of God but became a Fisher of Men. The sign of Christianity is the fish, and this version of Judaism was created at the start of the sign of Pisces. We now stand at the 'dawn of the age of Aquarius'.






>>Sorry...there's no "Jacoba" on the Egyptian King List. Any of them:

He was a Hyksos pharaoh of the 16th dynasty called Yakoba (Yakobaam). Remember the Hebrew Y is sometimes translated as our J. Jacob was actually Yakob. See any decent king list - try Chronicle of the Pharaohs, Peter Clayton. Manetho's and the Turin king lists are notoriously incomplete, especially about the Hyksos period.





>>The Theban Egyptians are not the same as "all Egyptians."

Where does the Bible say 'all Egyptians' ? There is a long-standing tradition in Egyptian literature that the term translated as 'Egypt' more often than not refers to Upper Egypt.





>>Uhm, and this is different from other times... how? I can't think of a single place on
>>Earth that doesn't have storms and darkness.

Egypt (Upper) rarely has notable storms that are worthy of record. However, there was a notable event at this time - the eruption of Thera (Santorini), which covered Egypt in fine ASH. This event was just a generation before the Hyksos exodus from Egypt, and indeed the eruption may have precipitated that exodus by causing religious strife.

The Bible has confused the Hyksos exodus and the later exodus of Pharaoh Akhenaton. That the bulk of this exodus story is concerned with the Thera eruption is evident from the description:

Take you handfuls of ASHES from the furnace and let Moses sprinkle it towards the
heaven ... And it shall become small dust in all the land of Egypt... Ex 9:18 9:23

A better description of the downrange ash fallout from the Thera eruption would be hard to find.





>>Some 500,000 were ejected from Egypt on a great exodus.
>>No records of an Egyptian exodus. Got source?

Manetho fr 42. He says 240,000 but this is generally thought to refer to soldiers. If dependents were included, a conservative 500,000 would easily be reached.




>>They set of from Pi-Ramesse.
>>Got a Biblical source for this?

Ex 12:37 Ramses is normally equated with Pi-Rameses, or Avaris.




>>quote: They travelled to Jerusalem. (Manetho)
>>They travelled to Jerusalem.
>>Manetho was here chronicaling the Jews. Not the Hyskos.

No he is not. Quote:

On these terms the Shepherds (Hyksos) ... no fewer than 240,000
persons left Egypt and journeyed over the desert to Syria. There ...
they built in the land now called Judaea a city ... and gave it the
name of Jerusalem. fr 42

He (Josephus, the quoter of Manetho) then goes on to explain the etymology of the term Hyksos. Clearly, the Hyksos were the Israelites, just as Josephus Flavius (historian circa 50AD) says.



Regards
Ralph Ellis

For further details see:
Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs, Edfu Books



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
ralphellis2
I am basing this posting on the name that you have decided to use as well as the signature that you have provided. My question to you is can you provide any proof of your claims? I do not mean the books that you have authored but other sources.
Since your reported background is being an airline pilot, I have serious misgivings in giving any of your claims any credence. Any prrof that you can provide to back up your theories would be greatly appreciated

Here is the information that I have been able to gather on you:



The Ralph Ellis Site

About Ralph Ellis by World Mysteries



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Sorry but this theory falls down owing to the biblical evidence that the Pharoahs OPPRESSED the israelites.

Now if this all a great "cover up" why is trhe Pentache (Books of Moses) concerned with this? Why are the Israelites, as a nation, repeatedly told to remember this, the coming out of Egypt.

If this theory was true this would be something that would be spoken of with PRIDE.

sigh ... the things people will write to try and sell their books ...




[edit on 29-8-2005 by Netchicken]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I do think history has obscured the close relationship of the Hebrews and Egypt--although I do not think it is the result of a deliberate conspiracy, but rather a case of mistaken scholastics based upon a misunderstanding of Egyptian culture and how dynasties and kingdoms were recorded for posterity.
Manetho Rehabilitated
The Revision of Ancient History

This book's author seems to have discovered something important regarding the lack of synchronization between the history of Egypt as it relates to the Hebrews.

Of particular significance is the unmistakable similarities between Imhotep, vizier to Dsojer, and Joseph, the son of Jacob and Rachel. In fact, everything pointed to them being one in the same--except chronology. I had suspected this for several years, after seeing something on the Discovery channel about Imhotep some time ago. Most people forget that names do not always translate exactly the same from one culture/language to the other--a fact that can be seen in the bible, especially in the book of Daniel. What the Israelites called themselves was not the same as what the Babylonians did. Often, though, the meanings which are behind the names can be found to be very similar if not the very same. As well, it has been my experience that, in all things, it is best NOT to approach research of history from the position of attachment to any certain timeline. Man is not perfect, obviously--and more often than not, when all things seem to coincide except the timeline factor--it is often proven later on that the initial discrepancy of time was the part of the data that was not reliable or founded on 'facts'. Especially the farther back we go, time is the first thing to blend into the mists of itself.

Here's a page for the purpose of comparison of Joseph and Imhotep-- basically the same as what I had come up with--but am too lazy to compile for the purpose of posting. All these things are easily verifiable.

I read somewhere (and I will do a search to try to find it again) that the translation of Hyskos to 'shepherd kings' was not accurate, and that more than likely the Hyskos were of another semitic origin, such as Canaanite as mentioned already in this thread--and the link above mentions them as being the Amakelites (Assyrians). I do feel that the name 'Hebrew' is a derivation of 'Hibiru'--another nomadic people of the period and location. I had researched this, also, a few years back--and found some obscure information--but the interest in 'Hibiru' seems to have been taken over since then, by the 'Melchezedek/Lightworkers' new age cultish thing--and so the information is polluted. Here is the only link by a seemingly rational person that I was able to locate in support of Hibirus = Hebrews.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ralphellis2
All sources are from original texts (Egyptian, Israelite and Greek), it is only the interpretation that differs. Yes, this would have large implications for orthodox theology.

Could you link to some of these, please?



>>They (the Hyksos) were polytheists. The "Jewish" theory isn't well
>>supported by the evidence, I'm afraid.

As were the Jews - originally. The Israelite god was called Adhon, Yahweh, Elohim and Shadday, which were all separate gods at one point. Adhon is from the Egyptian Aton (Adon), the Sun god.

That timeline doesn't work, I don't think. Aten was popularized by Ahkenaten and is 12th dynasty. That's much older than the Hyksos, which are 14th dynasty. Aten's worship ended after the death of Ahkenaten:
www.answers.com...


Yahweh is from the Egyptian Yah, the Moon god. Eli became the Greek Eli (Heli), which formed the Greek Helios, or the Sun god once more. The Koran also makes it clear that Abraham worshipped the Sun and Moon. There was also a great deal of phallic worship in the Old Testament, as in 1Ki 15:13. You will note that modern translations will not say 'penis'. The Vulgate Bible comes closest, saying it was a 'priapus'.

Got links for the above? I'm not surprised at the phallic worship or at least phallic references, but I would like to see some sources on the Yah and Heli and relation to Yahweh. Particularly since "Yahweh" is not the exact pronunciation.


The Hyksos-Israelites only became monotheist after the reforms of Pharaoh Akhenaton, who banned all idolatory and intituted a singlular hidden god (sound familliar?).

The well-established timeline puts a big hole in this argument:
Ahkenaten was born in about 1367 BC (dates vary)
He died about 1330 BC
en.wikipedia.org...

The Hyksos, on the other hand, reigned in the 1700 BC era:
www.touregypt.net...

Akhenaten couldn't possibly have influenced people who lived 400 years BEFORE he was born.



Yes, but Abraham must have. Abraham had an army of about 32,000 infantry. Are you saying that they had no weapons?

a) I don't believe there's any evidence outside of the Bible for Abraham.
b) infantry doesn't ride horses. The Bible does not talk about chariots and hordes of horsemen -- which the Hyksos had, judging from the accounts.


It had nothing to do with agriculture, it was all astrological. Shepherd means Aries, as the conversation between pharaoh and Joseph betrays. The constellations move every 2,000 years or so and Taurus had just given way to Aries (circa 1800 BC). This is why Joseph was comparing bulls with sheep and why Moses had so much trouble with bull-worshippers.


The stars really don't "rule" who worships what. The Celts of that period, for example, didn't worship any bull-like or cattle-like creature in spite of all the cattle around.

The earth does not shape itself around Christian theology and mythology.



The same happened in 10AD, when Aries gave way to Pisces. This is why Jesus was born as a Lamb of God but became a Fisher of Men. The sign of Christianity is the fish, and this version of Judaism was created at the start of the sign of Pisces. We now stand at the 'dawn of the age of Aquarius'.


The "Age of Aquarius" has never actually been set up with a fixed date. Depending on whose material you're reading, the dates vary by more than 300 years.



He was a Hyksos pharaoh of the 16th dynasty called Yakoba (Yakobaam). Remember the Hebrew Y is sometimes translated as our J. Jacob was actually Yakob. See any decent king list - try Chronicle of the Pharaohs, Peter Clayton. Manetho's and the Turin king lists are notoriously incomplete, especially about the Hyksos period.

Mmmkay. I do find a source:
www.ancientroute.com...

BUT... I don't find a scholarly source for this. Or a university website source confirming this.

Wikipedia and other sources identify this particular dynasty as one being local to the Sinai peninsula only:
fixedreference.org...

So they didn't really "rule Egypt" but ruled a section of Egypt.



>>The Theban Egyptians are not the same as "all Egyptians."

Where does the Bible say 'all Egyptians' ? There is a long-standing tradition in Egyptian literature that the term translated as 'Egypt' more often than not refers to Upper Egypt.

"more often than not" isn't that meaningful here. *Which* Egyptian literature? Can you cite some sources, please?


Egypt (Upper) rarely has notable storms that are worthy of record.

Erm, the world of that era was VERY different than the one of today, speaking climactically.



However, there was a notable event at this time - the eruption of Thera (Santorini), which covered Egypt in fine ASH. This event was just a generation before the Hyksos exodus from Egypt, and indeed the eruption may have precipitated that exodus by causing religious strife.


Let's review the timeline?

First Hyksos Pharaoh - 1640 BC
Thera erupts -1628 BC
Hyksos rule ends- 1540 BC
Akhenaten rules - 1353 BC

One "generation" = about 20 years.

I do, however, see reliable references to the Tempest Stele and a link to a different Pharaoh (Ahmose), and linking those two with the Thera explosion is probably not that controversial.


The Bible has confused the Hyksos exodus and the later exodus of Pharaoh Akhenaton.


There's a lot of problems with it. Here's a scholar's research. This is particularly good research, since the archaeological evidence is examined, as is the writing styles, the linguistics, and the culture:
www.bibleorigins.net...


>>Some 500,000 were ejected from Egypt on a great exodus.
>>No records of an Egyptian exodus. Got source?

Manetho fr 42. He says 240,000 but this is generally thought to refer to soldiers. If dependents were included, a conservative 500,000 would easily be reached.


Actually, the word Manetho uses is "families."
www.touregypt.net...




>>They set of from Pi-Ramesse.
>>Got a Biblical source for this?
Ex 12:37 Ramses is normally equated with Pi-Rameses, or Avaris.

Okay, I see references to the "treasure city" of Raameses in the Bible:
www.blueletterbible.org...

And I see other references that relate to this. Thanks for the clarification.







>>quote: They travelled to Jerusalem. (Manetho)
>>They travelled to Jerusalem.
>>Manetho was here chronicaling the Jews. Not the Hyskos.

No he is not. Quote:

On these terms the Shepherds (Hyksos) ... no fewer than 240,000
persons left Egypt and journeyed over the desert to Syria. There ...
they built in the land now called Judaea a city ... and gave it the
name of Jerusalem. fr 42

He (Josephus, the quoter of Manetho) then goes on to explain the etymology of the term Hyksos. Clearly, the Hyksos were the Israelites, just as Josephus Flavius (historian circa 50AD) says.


Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh... he's not always accurate. But I'm willing to look this one up some more. I think the timelines here are too wonky to make a valid point, and the culture and religion of Egypt didn't change to reflect the rulership of a fiercely monotheistic people (as the Hebrews were in that day, putting cities to the sword for not being monotheists.)



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Num 1:45 So all those listed of the people of Israel, by their fathers' houses, from twenty years old and upward, every man able to go to war in Israel--
Num 1:46 all those listed were 603,550.
Num 1:47 But the Levites were not listed along with them by their ancestral tribe.


The number of men who were able to goto war was 603,550.

Now, How many women were there?


Ok, if all those guys are married then the number is now double.

Now we are over 1.2 million. But wait!!
What about those under 20?
Surely there were children and old people.

Is an average of 2 kids per family ok with everyone? For that time period I think its short...but lets go with it for now.

2.4 million and counting.

Now what about old people?

HOw does all of this compare to the numbers of the Hyksos?




Some 500,000 were ejected from Egypt on a great exodus.
Some 500,000 were ejected from Egypt on a great exodus.
-------------------




On these terms the Shepherds (Hyksos) ... no fewer than 240,000
persons left Egypt and journeyed over the desert to Syria. There ...
they built in the land now called Judaea a city ... and gave it the
name of Jerusalem. fr 42


Maybe one of you can use that ?


Also...

A leader of theirs was called Jacob

No, Moses and Aaron are the leaders.
Jacob is called Israel since Gen 32:28
He dies 400 years before the exodus.

They travelled to Jerusalem
40 years later


Maybe you have a link, maybe not. It needs some work.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   
>>Sorry but this theory falls down owing to the biblical evidence that the
>>Pharoahs OPPRESSED the israelites.

I remember writing about all this when I was 33. The truth is that there were two pharaohs in Egypt at this time (the Hyksos period) and a civil war had erupted between the Two Lands (Upper and Lower Egypt). Thus Pharaoh (the Theban pharaoh Ahmose I) was indeed oppressing the Hyksos-Israelites (the Avaris pharaoh, possibly Jacoba). The theory remains upright and unchallenged.





>>Now if this all a great "cover up" why is trhe Pentache (Books of Moses) concerned with this?
>>If this theory was true this would be something that would be spoken of with PRIDE.

Not true. The Egyptian past of the patriarchs spoiled the new Judaic mythology that was forming in Jerusalem (or Babylon). The Egyptian past inferred that the Israelites had been polytheists; had indulged in incest; had been very wealthy and influential (instead of poor beduins) - in fact, they had done many of the things that they now despised.



a.
>>That timeline doesn't work, I don't think. Aten was popularized by Ahkenaten
>>and is 12th dynasty. That's much older than the Hyksos, which are 14th
>>dynasty. Aten's worship ended after the death of Ahkenaten:

b.
>>The well-established timeline puts a big hole in this argument:
>>Ahkenaten was born in about 1367 BC (dates vary)
>>The Hyksos, on the other hand, reigned in the 1700 BC era:
>>Akhenaten couldn't possibly have influenced people who lived 400
>>years BEFORE he was born.

No, but he could have influenced them while he was alive.
As Manetho clearly argues - there were actually two exoduses from Egypt. The first was the large Hyksos exodus. The second was the smaller exodus of Akhenaton. The Bible has merged these two stories into one - but if you look at the dispute between Jacob and Esau I think that traces of the first (Hyksos) civil war and exodus can be seen.

The Bible says this was a family dispute, but Josephus says it was a major pitched battle between two armies. Remember that Josephus' version of the Bible is more authoritative than any extant Old Testament. He had access to the Torah in the Temple of Jerusalem, which was probably some 1500 years older than any existing Torah.

In between these two exoduses we need a story of returning to Egypt to make it all dovetail - enter Joseph. The story of Joseph is clearly post the Hyksos exodus, and so he says to his brothers 'do not tell pharaoh your are shepherds, but say instead you are cattle breeders'. Why say such a thing? What was wrong with shepherds?

The answer is that the brothers of Joseph were not 'shepherds' but Shepherd Kings (Hyksos) and they were hated because the civil war and first exodus had only just ended. They were to say they were Apis bull worshippers instead (cattle breeders), to cover their identities.







>>The stars really don't "rule" who worships what. The Celts of that
>>period, for example, didn't worship any bull-like or cattle-like creature
>>in spite of all the cattle around.

But many cultures did. Look at the Minoans, the Indians, the Iberians. Wherever Egyptian influences spread, the veneration of the constellations spread with them. But some cultures got stuck in Taurus and never moved to Aries. This dispute between Taurus and Aries was probably the origins of the civil war that led to the Exodus. Certainly Alexander the Great understood the change to Aries, after his visit to Siwa in Egypt, as he always wore the two horns of the ram.





>>So they didn't really "rule Egypt" but ruled a section of Egypt.

Precisely, that is what the Hyksos did for much of their existence. The Two Lands were not united during this time.





>>Erm, the world of that era was VERY different than the one of today, speaking climactically.

Not really. The major climatic change in Egypt was before 7000 BC, when it was much wetter in the Sahara region, but that was way before dynastic Egypt.




>>Actually, the word Manetho uses is "families."

Not in the Loeb version he doesn't. But that is often the problem with translations, we are dependent on the translator's opinion, which may not be correct.



Regards
Ralph Ellis
Edfu Books.
www.edfu-books.com



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ralphellis2The Israelites were pharaohs of Egypt
I agree, they were. However, the relationship of the Israelites to the Hyksos cannot adequately be made since, much is unknown about these people; what is known is too far at odds with the Biblical accounts of the Jews and their travails. Perhaps in the future we will learn more about how this group influenced middle and upper Egyptian religion and politics from the 17th through 16th centuries BCE, until then, their relationship to the Egyptians/Jews should be left in the periphery.

This is not to say that Biblical accounts do not contain inaccuracies or visions of splendour, since it is safe to say that any group of people reporting on their purported history will always be reduced to embellishment. The object first and foremost for anyone attempting to draw a distinction is to weed through the pomp and then compare the evidence.

Many Jewish scholars and theologians have attempted to use the Hyksos as proof of the Exodus, however, the connection of the Israelites to the Hyksos is not only lite, but unfortunately for the Jews advancing the Hyksos connection, it is neither complementary to nor compatible with their Biblical story.

The evidence points toward Akhenaten as the ruler under whom any Exodus occurred, and those Egyptians previous to him who attempted to streamline the godhead. Anyone versed at all in Egyptology or any religious history should well know that it takes centuries to initiate change; and that such change is driven by the political and social evolution. In other words, no religious power (ever) or for that matter, political power, established itself by mere decree, or overnight by virtue of being named king and high priest.

When people can understand that very simple fact, they will understand why it took the Egyptians 2200 years to even develop the idea (only one of several at that) of the Horus child avenging his once revered but since declared, nasty Uncle Seth.

Some will never grasp it, because they either care not to; do not wish to; or have not the wherewithal to investigate and or understand.





[edit on 8/29/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ralphellis2
Not true. The Egyptian past of the patriarchs spoiled the new Judaic mythology that was forming in Jerusalem (or Babylon). The Egyptian past inferred that the Israelites had been polytheists; had indulged in incest; had been very wealthy and influential (instead of poor beduins) - in fact, they had done many of the things that they now despised.
Hmmm...

that idea can perhaps be supported by one of the following suppositions:

they had a extreme 180 degree cultural turnaround in a short period of time (not likely, considering known history of that culture since then)
--the bible is totally wrong and the Egyptian past should be considered 'gospel' (in which case you shouldn't even consider citing such a falsified piece of literature),
--or maybe that it's a case of mistaken identity--the Hyskos are not the Hebrews....

If you want to approach it on the assumption that the Judaic history and tradition is contrived; and even, in part, on a conscious level 'rewritten'--then even that hypothesis falls down, why make one that was not much different than the other ancient mythos of the time? They all can be traced back to primordial roots first emerging from the human mind even before Sumer--it seems to me that a people deciding to present themselves in the annals of history as the original monotheistic nation that they would create themselves totally different than the rest of the world! Why mention the Baals and Tammuz's ? Why not choose a name for God that was unheard of before then?

[


>>Akhenaten couldn't possibly have influenced people who lived 400
>>years BEFORE he was born.
No, but he could have influenced them while he was alive.
How?!?! They were dead before he lived!



As Manetho clearly argues - there were actually two exoduses from Egypt. The first was the large Hyksos exodus. The second was the smaller exodus of Akhenaton. The Bible has merged these two stories into one - but if you look at the dispute between Jacob and Esau I think that traces of the first (Hyksos) civil war and exodus can be seen.
I see much more clearly the enduring strife in Palestine--between Edom and the Jews. There is far more evidence for that, than what you are suggesting. Manetho (we don't even know for sure that Manetho was actually the author's name) 'clearly arguing' something from so distant a time and place is not a reasonable disqualification against the bible--whether one believes it as true or not. The bible, just as a book of history, is more credible than Manetho--as well as more complete and more consistent. The value of Manetho's history has been defined by its use as a history--if that proves faulty, then what outside substantiation is there for what it says being trustworthy?



The Bible says this was a family dispute, but Josephus says it was a major pitched battle between two armies. Remember that Josephus' version of the Bible is more authoritative than any extant Old Testament.
He had access to the Torah in the Temple of Jerusalem, which was probably some 1500 years older than any existing Torah.
The torah was likely destroyed in Babylon--the temple in Jerusalem was ruled by the Mishna and the Babylonian Talmud more than the Torah.

And what do you mean by 'authoritative?' I feel there is much value in the writings of Josephus--if one can keep in mind that he was far from impartial, unbiased, or imaginative. His writings can often be an additional source of documentation, but never are they valid as one's primary proof. They just don't stand up--and I'm not sure they were ever intended to be.


Why say such a thing? What was wrong with shepherds?
Well, likely they smelled of sheep (have you ever caught the whiff of a herd of sheep?!?) and were not real keen on table manners. Contrast this with the Egyptians of the time--which was the center of civilization at that time.

Even today--do Kings sit down to eat with the stable boys? Do the stable boys, every now and then, get feeling froggy enough to wrest the kingdom from the kings--only to return again to the stable?



The answer is that the brothers of Joseph were not 'shepherds' but Shepherd Kings (Hyksos) and they were hated because the civil war and first exodus had only just ended.
They weren't hated--looked down upon for their livelihood is not 'hated'--and if not for the generosity and absence of the animosity of the Pharoah of Joseph--they never would have been in Egypt in the first place, they would have starved in the famine somewhere in Canaan--where they lived in tents! The 'hate' and fear directed at the Israelites by the Egyptians was due to the fact of the numbers--something Jake mentioned. There were a lot of them! If they had had control of the Egyptian throne, they wouldn't have been run out! The idea of the biblical exodus makes no sense from this hypothesis--and without the idea of the biblical exodus--the hypothesis is of no purpose.


Not in the Loeb version he doesn't. But that is often the problem with translations, we are dependent on the translator's opinion, which may not be correct.
Translator--or interpretor? Two different things, often confused as one in the same.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Groupies:

Only the socalled "Tribe of Levi" seems to have had any phyiscal experience in Mitzrayim (Egypt): names like "Moses" (Mses) from the Heb Mosheh actually comes from the Egyptian word "Mosheh" meaning "son of"--and not the explanation "drawn out of the water" as Exodus chapter 1 seems to think)

That is why we read of Ra-Mosheh (son of Amon Ra = RAMSES) and other Egyptian pharaohs with MSES at the end of their names and the name of the god in front. (or other MOSHEH variants in the Greek LXX e.g. Thutmose etc.). Perhaps the Biblical MSES had a name with an Egyptian god in front as well (e.g. AhMoses etc.)

Other Levitical names have Egyptian accents, such as "Phineas", "Aaron", "Miryam" all of which are Egyptian names originally: note also the curiously untranslatable words for the magic dice of the high priest: the Urim ve Thummim which is derived from an Egyptian set of words for "Divine Justice" used in the law courts of ancient Egypt.

Also, it is not by chance that all the "foreign-to-Canaan" cult objects mentioned in the book of Exodus look and sound alot like some of the sacred implements from King Tut's tomb from an earlier "monotheistic" period, among the artifacts of the the exhibit now visiting Los Angeles (the box with sacred tools with poles at the bottom were sounded a lot like the Ark of the Covenant which similarly held sacred objects like the Mannah jar, the "rod of Aaron that budded" and a copy of the book of commandments/laws attributed to Moses etc.

And don't forget all that Egyptian inbreeding: King Tutankhamun married his sister, as did Cleopatra VII brother Ptolmey to keep the royal blood royal in accordance with ancient tradition (even if some of them were Greeks like the Ptolmeys who ruled Egypt after 322 BC) and of course the Moses in the bible had a father Amram---who married his OWN AUNT Yoshabed (dispite what the supposedly ancient Torah later says about uncovering the nakedness of your father's sister etc), which again suggests the Levite influence of Egypt, and not Canaan.

If there was any EXODUS from Egypt at all during the period BC 1400 to 1300, the very armed tribe of "Levi" would be the best candidate, especially when one pauses to consider that the Levites were the outsiders in Palestine----and were not given any land to inhabit of their own according to the division of the tribes in Deuteronomy....

When the Egyptians made slaves of the Hapiru (Canaanite "land thieves" who wandered westward and southward through the Arabian desert into the Nile delta to water their flocks during famines) some of these might have later called themselves Habiru, or Hebrews, with their own desert god YHWH or EL (or El-Shaddai, or El-Elyon, all these desert gods being given reference in Exodus chapter 3 at the burning bush to be identified with the later god YHWH).

So I would not completely rule out an EXODUS, just not 600,000 Israelites from "12 tribes" as the silly Cecil B DeMille film tries to portray....in living colour too.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   
According to a theory by Sigmund Freud, Moses was an egyptian governor of the eastern borderlands (today Sinai). Then for some reason he fell in disgrace with the Pharaoh and moved out of his land with a bunch of people who went on to acquire an ethnical identity as "hebrews". Freud's main argument is that the god of Moses was at first the same as Aton, and then become mixed up with Yahweh and several Baals (deities picked up from conquered tribes).

This theory has some points of contact with the proposed idea, providing that the torah was written a-posteriori as a story that embellishes the national epics of the hebrews, which is not improbable. I would rather trust any other reliable historical accounts.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ralphellis2
I remember writing about all this when I was 33. The truth is that there were two pharaohs in Egypt at this time (the Hyksos period) and a civil war had erupted between the Two Lands (Upper and Lower Egypt). Thus Pharaoh (the Theban pharaoh Ahmose I) was indeed oppressing the Hyksos-Israelites (the Avaris pharaoh, possibly Jacoba). The theory remains upright and unchallenged.


I'd dispute that. I'd like to see some evidence that there was another pharaoh when Ahmose ruled (1570-1546). He tossed the Hyksos out of Egypt.
www.egyptologyonline.com...

Yakkabhur is generally dated to a century BEORE Ahmose's reign; about 1640-ish
www.nemo.nu...


The Egyptian past inferred that the Israelites had been polytheists; had indulged in incest; had been very wealthy and influential (instead of poor beduins) - in fact, they had done many of the things that they now despised.

Pardon me... I'm going to rant for half a second.

The BEDOUINS ("beduins", etc) are a MODERN tribal group that formed in the Negrev in about 1400 AD. They did NOT exist back in the Egyptian dynasties.
nabataea.net...

The Bedouins of the 1400's to 1700's are as similar to the Negrev peoples of the Bronze Age as King George III of England is to the Bronze Age Celts.

(by the way, folks this is an excellent site on the Nabateans: nabataea.net... )

.

>>The well-established timeline puts a big hole in this argument:
>>Ahkenaten was born in about 1367 BC (dates vary)
>>The Hyksos, on the other hand, reigned in the 1700 BC era:
>>Akhenaten couldn't possibly have influenced people who lived 400
>>years BEFORE he was born.
No, but he could have influenced them while he was alive.


How? Elvis had left the kindom 300 years before!

This is getting long... let me answer the second part in another message. It's hard to slog through huge long messages on a biard.

[edit on 30-8-2005 by Byrd]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Okay... part two!



Originally posted by ralphellis2
As Manetho clearly argues - there were actually two exoduses from Egypt. The first was the large Hyksos exodus.

Actually, he doesn't "clearly state" this. His original manuscript is lost and instead we have three versions of his history and they all differ in significant ways:
ggreenberg.tripod.com...

Josephus is the one who says the Hyksos kings' expulsion is the same as Exodus. But Exodus clearly has a pack of monotheists being tossed out of a polytheistic Egypt -- which fits with Ahmose kicking the Hyksos out. (I actually don't believe the story, but the timeline makes sense.)


The second was the smaller exodus of Akhenaton. The Bible has merged these two stories into one - but if you look at the dispute between Jacob and Esau I think that traces of the first (Hyksos) civil war and exodus can be seen.

That's not possible. Jacob and Esau had their snarkfest BEFORE the Hyksos came in. Biblical scholars give dates in the range of 1900 BC.
www.rci.org.au...

Esau also founds Edom in the area of Jordan and Palestine... an area that the Egyptians didn't rule.
en.wikipedia.org...


The Bible says this was a family dispute, but Josephus says it was a major pitched battle between two armies.

mMmmkayy... could you point out the chapter please?
www.biblestudytools.net...


Remember that Josephus' version of the Bible is more authoritative than any extant Old Testament. He had access to the Torah in the Temple of Jerusalem, which was probably some 1500 years older than any existing Torah.

I'll dispute that one. The Torah was compiled in 70 BC by a group of Rabbis. Furthermore, the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the (relative) accuracy of the Old Testament translation.

[quoteThe story of Joseph is clearly post the Hyksos exodus, and so he says to his brothers 'do not tell pharaoh your are shepherds, but say instead you are cattle breeders'. Why say such a thing? What was wrong with shepherds?
The Egyptians were farmers and not wandering nomads. Shepherds, on the other hand, are nomadic because the sheep and goats eat up all the grass down to the roots and kill the plants. They have to keep moving.

Since they're trying to pass themselves off as Harmless Egyptians, they choose trades that Egyptians would logically have. If they say they are shepherds, they reveal themselves as one of the many nomadic tribes.


The answer is that the brothers of Joseph were not 'shepherds' but Shepherd Kings (Hyksos) and they were hated because the civil war and first exodus had only just ended. They were to say they were Apis bull worshippers instead (cattle breeders), to cover their identities.

Apis worshippers are never referred to as "cattle breeders" and the only ones who bred the sacred Apis bull were the priests. They weren't claming to be priests (they couldn't have gotten away with it. The minute they shaved like a priest, all those untanned areas would have screamed FAKE!)



>>The stars really don't "rule" who worships what. The Celts of that
>>period, for example, didn't worship any bull-like or cattle-like creature
>>in spite of all the cattle around.

But many cultures did. Look at the Minoans, the Indians, the Iberians.

Erf. You've just lumped in a lot of cultures who had worship associated with cattle in many different contexts (certainly not the same as the Egyptian one) and in many different times -- including times that predate the rise of the worship of Apis.

And there were apparently three different Apis cults in Egypt:
www.touregypt.net...



Wherever Egyptian influences spread, the veneration of the constellations spread with them.

They didn't venerate the constellations.



>>So they didn't really "rule Egypt" but ruled a section of Egypt.

Precisely, that is what the Hyksos did for much of their existence. The Two Lands were not united during this time.

I don't see any evidence of this:
ehistory.osu.edu...

References, please?


>>Erm, the world of that era was VERY different than the one of today, speaking climactically.

Not really. The major climatic change in Egypt was before 7000 BC, when it was much wetter in the Sahara region, but that was way before dynastic Egypt.

Oh, there were many climactic changes... the Holocene hypsithermal in 5,000 BC among many others:
museum.gov.ns.ca...


>>Actually, the word Manetho uses is "families."
Not in the Loeb version he doesn't. But that is often the problem with translations, we are dependent on the translator's opinion, which may not be correct.

Remember, there is no original Manetho. That would be Waddell's translation of Josephus, I assume? If so, and there's a "chapter and verse" we can certainly look at the original Latin. I can stumble through a bit of Latin with some dictionary help.

[edit on 30-8-2005 by Byrd]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 07:28 AM
link   
>>Now we are over 1.2 million. But wait!!
>> HOw does all of this compare to the numbers of the Hyksos?

You think the Bible is accurate to this extent?? Every ancient text seems to exaggerate by a minimum factor of two, sometimes much more.





>>The evidence points toward Akhenaten as the ruler under whom any Exodus occurred,
>>and those Egyptians previous to him who attempted to streamline the godhead. Anyone
>>versed at all in Egyptology or any religious history should well know that it takes centuries to
>>initiate change; and that such change is driven by the political and social evolution. In other
>>words, no religious power (ever) or for that matter, political power, established itself by mere
>>decree, or overnight by virtue of being named king and high priest.

But Akhenaton did just this - he completely changed the religion of Egypt almost overnight, by royal decree. But I would agree that Akhenaton was involved in the (second) exodus, that the Bible has confused and merged with the account of the Hyksos exodus.

As it happens, the brother of Akhenaton was called Moses (Tuthmoses). So we have two brothers: Akhenaton and Moses and Aaron and Moses. I think these were one and the same people, and that Akhenaton was thrown out of Egypt on the (second) exodus. This is Manetho's exodus of 80,000 'lepers' from the quarries on the eastbank of the Nile. These were not real lepers, of course, but theological lepers - the followers of Akhenaton. The 'quarry' on the eastbank was the city of Akhetaton (Amarna), which was used as a quarry after Akhenaton left.





>>Akhenaten couldn't possibly have influenced people who lived 400
>>years BEFORE he was born.
>>No, but he could have influenced them while he was alive
>>How?!?! They were dead before he lived!

The Israelites were dead? What do you mean?, they are alive today. When Akhenaton (Aaron) met up with the previous exiles in Jerusalem, he converted them to his new monotheistic religion. That is why Akhenaton's god Aton (Adon) became the Israelite god called Adhon. Anything strange about that? Actually, there are great parallels between the Amarna culture and Hyksos Avaris culture, which were both influenced by Minoan culture - in other words, Akhenaton and the Hyksos were linked to a degree.





>>Even today--do Kings sit down to eat with the stable boys?

You have really taken the biblical propaganda hook, line and sinker. Abraham had an army of 32,000 soldiers and riches beyond measure, so what kind of 'stable-boy' do you think he was? Joseph was prime minister of all Egypt. Moses was a prince of Egypt and a top army commander. In reality the patriarchs, like Abraham, were kings - Shepherd Kings, the Hyksos - and yes, kings do sit down to eat with other kings. (Which is why Abraham's wife was called Sarah).






>>I'd dispute that. I'd like to see some evidence that there was another
>>pharaoh when Ahmose ruled (1570-1546). He tossed the Hyksos out of Egypt.

So who do you think Pharaoh Ahmose I was fighting? The Hyksos had their own monarchy, separate from Thebes - hence the civil war. Don't you recall the argument between Pharaoh Seqenenra (Theban) and Pharaoh Apepi (Hyksos) over the hippopotamii? This was one of the the sparks that started the long war between the Hyksos and the Thebans. The identity of the Hyksos king at the end of the war is unknown.





>>The BEDOUINS are a MODERN tribal group that formed in the Negrev in
>>about 1400 AD. They did NOT exist back in the Egyptian dynasties.

Erm, you do worry about trifles - I was using the term in the generic sense. Bedouin - an Arab of the desert; wandering; gipsy. (Oxford dictionary)




>>That's not possible. Jacob and Esau had their snarkfest BEFORE the Hyksos
>>came in. Biblical scholars give dates in the range of 1900 BC.

You think that the early biblical story can be dated that accurately? Biblical dates can only be equated with known historical events, so once we go back beyond Pharaoh Shishak (Sheshonq), biblical dates are pure guesswork.




>>Esau also founds Edom in the area of Jordan and Palestine... an area
>>that the Egyptians didn't rule.

Edom means the Red Land - the original Egyptian name for Lower Egypt.




>>I'll dispute that one. The Torah was compiled in 70 BC by a group of Rabbis.
>>Furthermore, the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the (relative) accuracy of the
>>Old Testament translation.

I am sure it was, but no copy of this exists, and the earliest dates from around 1000AD. Conversely, Josephus was using a copy of the Torah dating from 500BC, and very early copies of his version (circa 500AD) are extant.




>>Oh, there were many climactic changes... the Holocene hypsithermal in 5,000 BC
>>among many others:

What does this have to do with dynastic Egypt??


Regards
Ralph Ellis
Edfu Books
www.edfu-books.com



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ralphellis2
But Akhenaton did just this - he completely changed the religion of Egypt almost overnight, by royal decree.

For the record, Ralph is correct here -- Akhenaton changed the religion of Egypt overnight. Everyone hated him for it and right after he died, everyone went back to the old religion.


But I would agree that Akhenaton was involved in the (second) exodus, that the Bible has confused and merged with the account of the Hyksos exodus.


Would you do us all a favor and just post a simple timeline of what your theory is?


As it happens, the brother of Akhenaton was called Moses (Tuthmoses).

He has a grandfather of the name Tuthmoses. He has a (possible) brother named Semenkare (relationship determined by genetic testing) and they share some notale physical characteristics:
www.ingentaconnect.com...://repro/rebi/2001/00000002/00000002/art00008&unc=

You're also basing the "moses" bit on our modern pronunciation based on spellings of convenience. In fact, the first sign of the name is actually "dhwty" and the next two signs are for the sound "m" and the sound "s". His actual Egyptian name was" Djehutymes".... and the name means "Born from Thoth."
touregypt.net...

Moses, however (as any Hebrew scholar of the Old Testament can tell you) comes from the Hebrew word meaning "to take out" and refers to his origin where he was taken out of the river (the story of his birth.)
www.jewfaq.org...


So we have two brothers: Akhenaton and Moses and Aaron and Moses. I think these were one and the same people, and that Akhenaton was thrown out of Egypt on the (second) exodus.

There's no match here with the Bible story.

I may be a Pagan, but even I know the Bible well enough. Moses is the son of Amran of the tribe of Levi, and the Bible has an accounting of his lineage. It's a "no match" with the known lineate of Thuthmoses.

Furthermore, Moses is born into a monotheistic faith from a family of traditional priests of a single deity. This is most certainly not true of Akhenaton. Nor was Tuthmoses adopted. And if he'd killed another Egyptian, he would not have been prosecuted.

Niether Tuthmoses nor Akhenaten did not flee the country, flee to Midian, marry and have children and work as a shepherd for 40 years (until he was the age of 80), and he sure didn't lead people away into another land.
www.jewfaq.org...

There's simply no match.



>>Akhenaten couldn't possibly have influenced people who lived 400
>>years BEFORE he was born.
>>No, but he could have influenced them while he was alive
>>How?!?! They were dead before he lived!

The Israelites were dead? What do you mean?, they are alive today.


Apparently I wasn't clear, here, and you misunderstood completely.

The Jews were monotheists long before Akhenaten was born. He couldn't possibly have turned them into monotheists.


When Akhenaton (Aaron) met up with the previous exiles in Jerusalem, he converted them to his new monotheistic religion.
That is why Akhenaton's god Aton (Adon) became the Israelite god called Adhon.


Sorry...no match. 'Adonai' is from the Ugratic word meaning "father" or "ruler":
www.hebrew4christians.com...



>>I'd dispute that. I'd like to see some evidence that there was another
>>pharaoh when Ahmose ruled (1570-1546). He tossed the Hyksos out of Egypt.

So who do you think Pharaoh Ahmose I was fighting? The Hyksos had their own monarchy, separate from Thebes - hence the civil war. Don't you recall the argument between Pharaoh Seqenenra (Theban) and Pharaoh Apepi (Hyksos) over the hippopotamii? This was one of the the sparks that started the long war between the Hyksos and the Thebans. The identity of the Hyksos king at the end of the war is unknown.


Point conceded.
I found a nice list here, and it certainly matches what you're saying (and yes, I was familar with the tale) -- the four different dynasties in Egypt at approximately the same hundred year period:
www.jimloy.com...

Although, judging from the dates, the civil war existed between the four dynasties and Ahmose essentially stomps in and whaps them all and puts them under his rule after they've exhausted themselves with the battles.



>>The BEDOUINS are a MODERN tribal group that formed in the Negrev in

>>about 1400 AD. They did NOT exist back in the Egyptian dynasties.

Erm, you do worry about trifles - I was using the term in the generic sense. Bedouin - an Arab of the desert; wandering; gipsy. (Oxford dictionary)

Actually, it's not a trivial point. It's a very important point because there are a lot of different cultures there. You can't merrily hypothesize about the behaviors of people from 4,000 years ago based on what people living in the region today are doing.

You have some good scholarship here, but part of your theory (and one of the more unworkable parts) is some assumptions about the culture of the shepherds based on some modern understanding of the nomads. There are a lot of cultures in that area at the time you're speaking of, and they do some significant things. You need to expand your scholarship to the other cultures and locations.



>>That's not possible. Jacob and Esau had their snarkfest BEFORE the Hyksos
>>came in. Biblical scholars give dates in the range of 1900 BC.

You think that the early biblical story can be dated that accurately? Biblical dates can only be equated with known historical events, so once we go back beyond Pharaoh Shishak (Sheshonq), biblical dates are pure guesswork.

Oh, I agree -- but your theory also bases itself on Biblical timelines. If you're doing that, you can't just pick and choose conveninet selections from it. You have to come up with a good and clearly explained timelie yourself. And then you have to explain why your version is better than other scholarly versions.

Not an impossible task, of course, but all I see is matching stories ... not checking timelines and cultures.



>>Esau also founds Edom in the area of Jordan and Palestine... an area
>>that the Egyptians didn't rule.

Edom means the Red Land - the original Egyptian name for Lower Egypt.


To-Mehu (and later Kehmet) is the original Egyptian name for Lower Egypt. Niether means "red."

"Deshert" (meaning 'red') was a name for Upper Egypt, originally called " Shemau."
www.answers.com...



>>I'll dispute that one. The Torah was compiled in 70 BC by a group of Rabbis.
>>Furthermore, the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the (relative) accuracy of the
>>Old Testament translation.

I am sure it was, but no copy of this exists, and the earliest dates from around 1000AD. Conversely, Josephus was using a copy of the Torah dating from 500BC, and very early copies of his version (circa 500AD) are extant.

He may attribute it to being 500 BC, but there is no evidence that it was indeed that old.


>>Oh, there were many climactic changes... the Holocene hypsithermal in 5,000 BC
>>among many others:

What does this have to do with dynastic Egypt??

The original discussion was about the climate at the time of the Tempest Stele and the fact that the climate had changed drastically over the time period and that storms (while very unusual) were not "never happened before" events.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Whilst I will not go so far as to state that the jews were pharoas of Egypt, I will admit that I think there is more of a tie to Akhenaten than western scholarship is ready to admit to yet.

Akhenaten might not have been driven out of Egypt, but what did happen to those followers of his that started the new capitol, that eventually failed? Would the remaining "purist"allow those responsible for the decline of the civilization to linger? Logic would say no.

I forget the name of the town that Akhenaten moved the capitol to, but I do know that it was shortly thereafter deserted. These people had to go somewhere, yeah?

Seeing that this is the first recorded incident of monotheism, I think it only logical to assume that some of these early adherents, who most likely were to become exiles, were to spread this faith, and perhaps pick up converts along their sojourn through the desert.

This could be attested to the fact that many early hebrew stories mimic earlier stories, and those found throughout the region between Egypt, and palestine, or ancient cannaan.

This, as I and others believe were to be the foundation of Israeli, and monotheistic thought. Couple this with the fact that Hebrew texts can trace their roots back to babylon, Egypt, and even Sumeria, and it would lend credence to this theory.

Of course this is not currently recognized in academia, even if a number of scholars do adhere to this theory.......Then again todays science, is tomorrows superstition.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join