All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 

Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 2:14 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Lysimachus wrote:
24. THE IPUWER PAPYRUS

Sekhmet wrote:
If you had taken the time Lysimachus you would have found a thread on the Pharaohs topics that discuss these papers. What i bet your source doesn't do is tell you that these papers originally date to the 1st Intermediate Period not the 18th Dynasty. The 1st Intermediate Period dates to the period just after the down fall of the Old Kingdon last ruled by Pepy II. Bet you don't even know who is first credited with discovering the similarities.


This too was discussed in previous forums. It was concluded that there really is no way to prove that they date from the 1st Intermediate Period. Absolutely no way to prove it at all. There are some indications pointing to that possibility, but it is impossible to give a date for the composition of this document. The surviving papyrus (Papyrus Leiden 334) itself is a copy made during the New Kingdom. Ipuwer is generally supposed to have lived during the Middle Kingdom or the Second Intermediate Period, and the catastrophes he bewails to have taken place four centuries earlier during the First Intermediate Period.

On the other hand, Miriam Lichtheim, following S. Luria, contends that:

the 'Admonitions of Ipuwer' has not only no bearing whatever on the long past First Intermediate Period, it also does not derive from any other historical situation. It is the last, fullest, most exaggerated and hence least successful, composition on the theme "order versus chaos." M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume I, p.150

Knowing full well that Egypt was notorious for recording mainly that which was of benefit to their kingdom, and that disasters, losses, and particular individuals which were known to be a disgrace to the kingdom were erased from memory in numerous inscriptions and hieroglyphs, the idea is not far fetched that Ipuwer wrote of that which happened in the late 18th dynasty, but for the sake of pride, dated it much earlier during the 1st Intermediate Period. It may have influenced the changed from the 18th to the 19th dynasty. After all, the works are from the early 19th dynasty.


Well hi again, Lysimachus :)

Had you taken the time on our thread about the Papyrus of Ipuwer you would have discovered i don't use them in my work. Interesting how you find substancial proof in Egyptian works when it suits your theory, and poor proof when it does not. James 3:10 :) it should not be so.

Anyway this is for those that come later to read.

"The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage
http://members.tripod.com/~Raseneb/Ipuw ... troduction

The official name of this document is Leiden Papyrus #344, after the Dutch museum where it currently resides. The style of writing suggests that it was a XIX dynasty composition, but it is probably a copy of one written much earlier. The first Egyptologist to make a detailed examination of it was Sir Alan Gardiner, in 1909. He believed it to be a XII dynasty work, recalling the chaos of the First Intermediate Period. Most scholars have agreed with Gardiner, though over the years some (Kurt Sethe, Immanuel Velikovsky, and Jan Van Seters, to name a few) have argued that a Second Intermediate Period date is more likely. If Gardiner was correct, this is the only record we have describing the turbulent years between the Old and the Middle Kingdom."

"The admonitions of Ipuwer
http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/texts/ipuwer.htm
It is impossible to give a date for the composition of this document. The surviving papyrus (Papyrus Leiden 334) itself is a copy made during the New Kingdom. Ipuwer is generally supposed to have lived during the Middle Kingdom or the Second Intermediate Period, and the catastrophes he bewails to have taken place four centuries earlier during the First Intermediate Period.

On the other hand, Miriam Lichtheim, following S. Luria, contends that

the 'Admonitions of Ipuwer' has not only no bearing whatever on the long past First Intermediate Period, it also does not derive from any other historical situation. It is the last, fullest, most exaggerated and hence least successful, composition on the theme "order versus chaos."
M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume I, p.150


Fringe historians often compare the content of this papyrus with Exodus, the second book of the Bible. Similarities between Egyptian texts and the Bible are easily found, and it is reasonable to assume Egyptian influence on the Hebrews, given their at times close contacts. But to conclude from such parallelisms that the Ipuwer Papyrus describes Egypt at the time of the Exodus, requires a leap of faith not everybody is willing to make."


i for one would not consider Gardiner, or Grimal as fringe historians. :)

And while you boast about it being written in the 19th Dynasy, it is aknowledge that it was just rewritten then.

As for you desire for chariots, they like the camels in Genesis' are considered redactions by much later authorsmost likely during the Babylonian Exile. If you insist on chariots okay, but please explain to me how an army of chariots take so long to overtake the on foot, burdened with family, and loot Hebrews?
:?: Oh, yes please explain about the camels while you are at it please.

You have a nice day, and if your proofs are being accepted on your other forums perhaps they need someone with experience in Egypt. :) Hope your leg is improving well.


Top
 Profile  
 

Re: The Exodus, Egyptian Chronology, & The Bible - Part
PostPosted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 12:51 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Lysimachus wrote:

Image


Very interesting Lysimachus, however it appears to me that your theory places the oppression of the Hebrews, (Asiatics) during the early years of the 18th dynasty.

i went and checked my Dr. Redford and on page 129, of Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times... he writes. "The remnants of the Hyksos fled across the Sinai and holed up in Sharuhen on the seacoast south of Gaza. Presumably the majority of the Asiatic community in the eastern Delta retired eastward aslo, it they had not already done so. Some Asiatics will have been captured in engagements or taken as part of the booty and dispersed as domestics amoung the Egyptian troops: but these were relatively few, and the absence in Egypt during the next fifty years of a servile community of aliens speaks against the postulate of a seizure of a large segment of the Hyksos population by the liberators.

In other words Lysimachus, during the time you want us to believe the Hebrews were being enslaved and oppressed... Egypt had an absence of any large numbers of enslaved servile aliens. How do you explain this?


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:07 pm 
Servant
Offline

Joined:Sun Jun 27, 2004 1:14 pm
Posts:25
Sekhmet, it appears you are picking and choosing different parts from my articles instead of reading them as a whole.

Let me throw in a couple points that you seem to be ignoring.

- Concerning the Ipuwer Papyrus, I can not come to agree with the possibility of it to be 12th dynasty work, period.

Why? For 3 reasons:

1. The Ipuwer Papyrus specifically states that the river WAS blood! This is an EXACT description of one of the plagues of Egypt.

2. These plagues happened according to scripture during a dynasty that utilized a large armies of chariots, of which the Bible says "600 chosen chariots + ALL the chariots of EGYPT!". We are talking LATE 18th DYNASTY HERE!

3. The fact that the Ipuwer Papyrus was an 19th dynasty composition is MORE COMPELLING PROOF than to merely speculate and say that it was from an earlier time during the First Intermediate Period.

Notice the word you missed:

Quote:
The official name of this document is Leiden Papyrus #344, after the Dutch museum where it currently resides. The style of writing suggests that it was a XIX dynasty composition, but it is probably a copy of one written much earlier.


Did you SEE it Sekhmet?! The word is "Probably", and there is NO PROOF for it whatsoever. It is MERE speculation, and that is why Dr. Moller brought it up, because he believes these scholars are wrong, as well as I. I don't agree with their speculations.

There are just too many similarities between the plagues of Egypt and the descriptions, and critics will continue to do all in their power to accuse us "fringe" historians of being wrong. Admitting that there is a relation here means to subscribe to biblical authenticity, and that is something critics and unbelievers are unwilling to do. Therefore, they will do anything possible to try and descredit the biblical narrative based on unproven speculations that are completely null and void of common sense.


Quote:
Quote:
This was a labeling by the Egyptians – “they were a weak people at that time” (so it appeared) .


Quote:
So you prefer to use Egyptian sources, to believe them over what is written in scripture? i do not.


Quote:
Those verses indicating their “might”, “great number”, and may “fight against us” are simply due to the fact that years had passed, and these “shepherds” have grown in number. The original term seemed to apply, but does equating a particular name of meaning necessarily negate the possibility of change in context in strength with these people? Not in the least.


Quote:
Especially when Egyptian sources support your theory far better then scripture does. Right!


Sekhmet, you really confuse me as to what your point is sometimes. I'm not even sure what you are disputing. How do you gather that I am taking Egyptian sources over the Bible? You seem to miserably fail to percieve the overall point I am trying to make concerning the name "Hyksos" being applied to these asiatic foreigners that dwelt in Egypt. There is enough evidence that suggests the term "Hyksos" is translated as "shepherd kings". It seems likely that the Hebrews were intermingled with these people, the "shepherd kings". You quote me verses from scripture describing their great "might" as a people, and that this is "indicative" to the fact that this term "Hyksos" ("sheperd kings") can in no wise apply to the Hebrews in any way shape or form.

Not only have I tried to make it clear to you that the Egyptians coined this term on them (regardless of their might), but you seem to fail to comprehend the fact that when Jacob and his sons came to settle in Egypt, they WERE sheperds! The Bible makes it clear time and time again that they had "flocks" and "herds", let alone the fact that when Jacob moved into Egypt, they were in a famine which "severely" weakened them, and settling in Egypt did them a great favor, for Egypt was prepared for the famine by Joseph.

"Haste ye, and go up to my father, and say unto him, Thus saith thy son Joseph, God hath made me lord of all Egypt: come down unto me, tarry not: And thou shalt dwell in the land of Goshen, and thou shalt be near unto me, thou, and thy children, and thy children's children, and thy flocks, and thy [bherds[/b], and all that thou hast: And there will I nourish thee; for yet there are five years of famine; lest thou, and thy household, and all that thou hast, come to poverty."--Genesis 45:9-11

"And Joseph said unto his brethren, and unto his father's house, I will go up, and show Pharaoh, and say unto him, My brethren, and my father's house, which were in the land of Canaan, are come unto me; And the men are shepherds, for their trade hath been to feed cattle; and they have brought their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have. And it shall come to pass, when Pharaoh shall call you, and shall say, What is your occupation? That ye shall say, Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we, and also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians."--Genesis 46:31-34

Although you may argue that the Hyksos did not come into the picture until several dynasty after Joseph (based on my premise that Imhotep was from the 3rd dynasty), it is still logical to conclude that as a result of this "famine", there was a great and long-stretched migration of asiatics into Egypt from the time of the famine all the way to the end of the slavery. The term "Hyksos" of which the Egyptians applied coincides amazingly with what they were originally known in scripture, as you can see above. The evidence suggesting that the Hyksos "overthrew" the Egyptian dynasties and ruled from about "the 18th through 16th centuries B.C." also nullifies your theory that the Hebrews could not apply to the Hyksos (because "they were mighty"), since this just goes to clearly show that although the name "Hyksos" equates "sheperd kings" (name applied based on original status in Gen. 46:31-34), it does not necessarily equate the reality of their increasing strength and numbers of which God had blessed them with.

There is not overlording the Egyptian sources over the Biblical here. It all has to do with evaluating the data from the perceptions of these civilizations at their different times.

Regarding 1Kings 6:1 vs. Judges. I will have to enlighten you at a further date concerning this info since I am short on time at this moment. I have done an incredible amount of research on all the different view points concerning the dating of the Exodus, and am now very familiar with your viewpoint of how you arrive at 583 years. Be aware that I was a bit hasty when I said I did not recognize the authors you mentioned, since I do know Professor Ken Kitchen. You do know that Ken Kitchen is contributing to Moller's new series, "The Exodus Case"? I bet you didn't even know that:
http://www.mahoneymedia.com/exodus/AboutTeam/Index.html

Read. He's in the list. You can even see him talking in the first video clip, "The Red Sea Crossing Promo". He is obviously probably one that "reputiates" Moller's theory (to give the program a balanced approach), but the fact that Moller is letting these men contribute (both that support and reputiate) only leads me to highly respect Moller and his theories, since he obviously is aware of ALL the theories you have mentioned. I trust he has good reason not to believe in them

Later I will provide you sources that show how we cannot trust the calculatons in Judges, (since there seems to be evidence of overlapping years) and that these men are not doing the calculations right, however, 1Kings 6:1 can be trusted to its fullest.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:00 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Lysimachus wrote:
Sekhmet, it appears you are picking and choosing different parts from my articles instead of reading them as a whole.


I am sorry it appears that way, if you consider the whole of my replies you ought to notice i am addressing every last one of your points. :)

SNIPPED OUT a bunch of rehashed stuff and non pertinent stuff ... that folks who read the thread will know what i mean.

Lysimachus wrote:
Later I will provide you sources that show how we cannot trust the calculatons in Judges, (since there seems to be evidence of overlapping years) and that these men are not doing the calculations right, however, 1Kings 6:1 can be trusted to its fullest.


Of course you can Lysimachus i have no doubt of this. Why because it supports you theology not reality. As does most of what you write does.

HOW ABOUT JUST SOME ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS?


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 10:35 am 
Servant
Offline

Joined:Sun Jun 27, 2004 1:14 pm
Posts:25
What questions? Can you re-ask them? I do not have time to go back through this thread and try to identify them.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:58 am 
Servant
Offline

Joined:Sun Jun 27, 2004 1:14 pm
Posts:25
Quote:
Of course you can Lysimachus i have no doubt of this. Why because it supports you theology not reality. As does most of what you write does.


I beg to differ. That statement is only based on your interpretation of reality. My perceptions vs. your perceptions of reality are obviously vastly different.

You base your theories of "reality" around "not having to slice and dice history", but yet you seem to fail to recognize that these theories are only based on the frail and tentative that Egyptologists have pieced together largely on speculations and probabilities--of in which all reality could be very wrong. So don't act like you have it all together, when they admittedly don't have it all together.

There are so many aspects of uncertainty, that it would be insane for you to base your theories on the premise that the royal lines have been lined up in accordance to the "know-it-all" authorities, when in all reality, these authorities are often at rival with one another--conflicting with one another's convoluted theories.

A great deal of uncertainty exists in calculating the dates of the early Egyptian dynasties, and is presented by E.A. Wallis Budg's book (most recent revision 1989):

"The dates that he and others have assigned to the first dynasty depend upon the numbers of the years that they have assigned to these two intervals. But these dates – Lepsius BC 3892, Bunsen BC 3623, Lieblein BC 3893, Brugsch BC 4455 or 4400, Meyer BC 3315, Breasted BC 3400, Hall BC 3500 – are only indexes to the opinions of those who propose them, and it is quite possible that every one of them is wrong in point of actual fact. The material for fixing with certainty the date of the first dynasty does not exist at present.”—E.A. Wallis (1989) The Mummy. The original published 1925 by Cambridge University Press, Dover Publications, Mineola, New York, USA.

“In one inscription (described by P.A. Clayton in Chronicle of the Pharaohs—Reference below) there is a special reference to a constellation of stars. From this date can be calculated, but there are one or two factors of which one must be aware if the information is to be rightly interpreted. Firstly, the exact position from where the constellation of stars was observed is needed. This is not given in the inscription, and so there can be great uncertainty in calculating the date. An even more important factor is that constellations of stars go in cycles and are repeated at certain intervals. This means that the constellations could fit with several periods of time. The period selected would then entail a subjective choice….The span of time indicated for this point in Egyptian history varies considerably between the authors mentioned (Wallis’ quote above), 1140 years to be precise. Wallis’ book gives several examples of extensive differences in estimated dates, and mentions that the Egyptians did not keep their own chronologies in the way we do today, and therefore generally speaking it is difficult to draw specific conclusions about dates and periods of time.

The reign of Pharaoh Djoser was during the third dynasty. There is a great deal of uncertainty about the dating because of the reasons given above, and therefore it is difficult to compare them with the comparatively exact time axes which the biblical texts set up.

It should then be more important to relate events to each other, and this also gives a greater degree of certainty when the older Egyptian dynasties are discussed. For example, it may be that dating done with the help of constellations of stars could change the Egyptian time-axes with around 1000 years, depending on which constellation cycle one chooses.”
—Dr. L. Moller (2000), The Exodus Case, p.83, 84.

“Even with chronological information available…it may come as a surprise to realize that it is extremely difficult to fix true or absolute dates in Egyptian chronology.”—P.A. Clayton (1994) Chronicle of the Pharaohs, Thames and Hudson Ltd., London, England.

It can not be ignored that the dynasties of Egypt are a relative concept but they have come to be considered as indicating “different eras of time.” The dynasty concept will be used for simplicity’s sake, but it might be worthwhile to see what Breasted writes about the dynasties as a concept:

“A more or less arbitrary and artificial but convenient subdivision of these epochs, beginning with the historic age, is furnished by the so-called dynasties of Manetho. This native historian of Egypt, a priest of Sebennytos, who flourished under Ptolemy I (305-285 BC), wrote a history of his country in the Greek language. The work has perished, and we only know it is in epitome by Julius Africanus and Eusebius, and extracts ob Josephus. The value the work was slight, as it was built up on folk tales and popular traditions of the early kings. Manetho divided the long succession of Pharaohs as known to him, into thirty royal houses or dynasties, and although we know that many of his divisions are arbitrary, and that there was many a dynastic change where he indicates none, yet his dynasties divide the kings into convenient groups, which have so long been employed in modern study of Egyptian history, that it is now impossible to dispense with them.” -- J.H. Breasted (1921) A History of Egypt, Hodder and Stoughton, London, England.

And note these comments related to the 18th dynasty by Tyldesley:

“The surviving archeological evidence is therefore strongly biased toward religion and death; we have for example, two tombs, three sarcophagi and several temples built by Hatshepsut, but little trace of the palaces where she lived her life. Overall we are left with the misleading impression that the Egyptians were depressingly gloomy and morbid race.” -- J. Tyldesley (1998) Hatshetsup, the Female Pharaoh, Penguin Books, Harmonsdsworth, England.

And further, here is a general comment to the Egyptian history:

“…we should never lose sight of the fact that the written record is incomplete, randomly selected, and carries its own biases. The monumental inscriptions, for example, are basically a mixture of religious and propaganda texts which tell the story that the king him – or herself wished to convey, and which cannot be taken as literal truth. The translators of these inscriptions are faced with problems not just of accuracy but of interpretation…”

And continuing Tyldesley’s comments, here is one to Egyptian chronology:

“However, there was no ancient equivalent of our modern calendar, and year numbers started afresh with every new reign.”

And finally, a comment on Egyptian names:

“Manetho, working in approximately 300 BC, compiled a detailed history of the kings of Egypt. This original work is now lost, but fragments have been preserved in the writings of Josephus (AD 70), Africanus (early third century AD), Eusebius (early fourth century AD) and Syncellus (c. AD 800). These preserved extracts do not always agree, and the names given are often wildly incorrect, but students of Egyptian history still acknowledge a huge debt to Manetho, the ‘Father of Egyptian History’.

Don't try to pretend that our chronological premises are somehow drastically inferior to the ones that you are basing your conclusions upon--because it's just downright dishonest and you know it. The hypothesis being proposed here is hardly more far fetched than many in circulation, and I think it’s unfair for you to try and insist otherwise.

The reason why most popular references on ancient Egypt speak about certain things as though they were absolute fact are really the prodigy of reputable Egyptologist's educated speculations that are really not "fact" at all, but instead "probabilities" as they curtly admit when it really comes down to it.

No I am not trying to say that there are certain things about Ancient Egypt that have been established without a shadow of a doubt, but when things start getting more specific, that's where much uncertainty arises.

Here is one example of the confusion and contention that exists regarding the 18th dynasty and it's Thutmosid/Amenhotep rulers:

http://www.dnafoundation.com/cpope/mirror03.htm

If I were you, I would quit playing the "holier than thou" in your knowledge of Ancient Egypt.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:00 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Mon Aug 25, 2003 5:22 am
Posts:1028
Location: Pennsylvania
I have a quick question, If you dont feel like answering, its cool. If Djoser was in the 3rd Dynasty, and he had the first pyramid, where were pharoahs buried before that time? In the ground?


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:40 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Hi PharoahKel,
Pharaoh Djoser was the 1st Pharaoh of the 3rd Dynasty. He did make what is considered the first Pyramid better known as the Step Pyramid. But he wasn't buried inside it. He had many chambers built underneath it for burials of himself, included family members and storerooms. Earlier Pharaohs had similar underground structures for themselves. While on top of their underground chambers they had a large earthern structure built in the form of a pyramid.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 6:26 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Mon Aug 25, 2003 5:22 am
Posts:1028
Location: Pennsylvania
Ahh, thank you


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:20 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Sat Mar 13, 2004 1:49 pm
Posts:914
Location: Long Beach, CA
Pharoah Kel, the information you recieved is a little misleading. Althugh it is true that several of the Pharaoh's who ruled before Djoser were buried under pyramids, the most popular method at that time was the mastaba. Burial chambers were still at the bottom of a shaft, but a mastaba was constructed over the shaft. They became, after a bit of time, very large and complex. Many different "rooms" were in each--however, the "rooms" were mostly dummies filled with rubble. The entire mastaba was considered the home of the spirit of the dead person, with many rooms for the spirit to use.
It wasn't until the 3rd dynasty Pharaoh, Sneferu, that the burial chambers were actually inside the pyramid. Before then, the burial chambers would be found underneath the pyramid.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 10:00 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Osiris II wrote:
Pharoah Kel, the information you recieved is a little misleading. Althugh it is true that several of the Pharaoh's who ruled before Djoser were buried under pyramids, the most popular method at that time was the mastaba. Burial chambers were still at the bottom of a shaft, but a mastaba was constructed over the shaft. They became, after a bit of time, very large and complex. Many different "rooms" were in each--however, the "rooms" were mostly dummies filled with rubble. The entire mastaba was considered the home of the spirit of the dead person, with many rooms for the spirit to use.
It wasn't until the 3rd dynasty Pharaoh, Sneferu, that the burial chambers were actually inside the pyramid. Before then, the burial chambers would be found underneath the pyramid.


Hi Osiris II, you might be interested in the funerary practices of the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods in Toby A.H. Wilkinson's book Early Dynastic Egypt. Mastaba's were the tombs of choice for nobles as a rule :)


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2004 7:52 am 
Scribe
Offline

Joined:Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:53 pm
Posts:51
Location: Malaysia
i think the best source to locate Pharaoh of Moses: Holly Scriptures. I think both agree it happen in New Kingdom.

Both Holly scripture did not mention a specific name and complimentary to each other.

Bible: the location named Pi-Ramses. The early biblical notes on the name 'Ramses' shows that they did not know what is 'Ramses'. And we all know that the Ancient language had lost and only found again in the middle of 20th century. Bible preserved the name 'Ramses' till today.

Quran: haman a title name mentioned 6 times in Quran associated to Pharaoh. It is associated to Priest of Amun and Haman is the arabic name for the position. Amun is venerated as the important deity in New Kingdom, it is no wonder the important position of Priest of Amun in New Kingdom.

I tried to fit into several theories outside the New Kingdom just does't fit to Holly scriptures. Sorry Sekhmet.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2004 1:00 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
zampeada wrote:
i think the best source to locate Pharaoh of Moses: Holly Scriptures. I think both agree it happen in New Kingdom.

Both Holly scripture did not mention a specific name and complimentary to each other.

Bible: the location named Pi-Ramses. The early biblical notes on the name 'Ramses' shows that they did not know what is 'Ramses'. And we all know that the Ancient language had lost and only found again in the middle of 20th century. Bible preserved the name 'Ramses' till today.

Quran: haman a title name mentioned 6 times in Quran associated to Pharaoh. It is associated to Priest of Amun and Haman is the arabic name for the position. Amun is venerated as the important deity in New Kingdom, it is no wonder the important position of Priest of Amun in New Kingdom.

I tried to fit into several theories outside the New Kingdom just does't fit to Holly scriptures. Sorry Sekhmet.


Welcome back Zampeada! i am sorry, but while scriptures might indicate that Exodus happened in the New Kingdom there is no evidence in Egypt, or the greater Middle East that it did. This is the main reason why so many experts are claiming with ever growing proof that scripture is mistaken, in error, or just plain made up. :)


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:40 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Hi again Zampaeda :) After posting the above i got to thinking about what you said. Scriptures indicate that Exodus happened in the New Kingdom. Even while there is no archaeological support for this basis. i asked myself why would scripture point to the New Kingdom when there is no archaeological support. Now some might claim, it exists but the experts are lying about it, covering it up. i don't agree with that assessment.

i am forced again to reconsider the scriptures themselves. It is known that the Qu'ran wasn't written until the late 7th century AD. While the Torah, or Old Testament was codified in the 7th century BC. Once these facts are accepted one can look backwards into time and see that the New Kingdom is the closest period of Egyptian history, basicly untouched by foreign rulers. So to me at least it is understandable that 7th century BC folks would use terms that reached more easily into the New Kingdom, than say the Middle or Old Kingdom's. By the late 7th century when God was reveling the Qu'ran to Mohammed (pbh) i again see no reason why God would not use terms relating to the New Kingdom instead of the older periods even if the these times were the correct times, not the New Kingdom. Why? First off God does not seek to confuse his believers. It would be confusing to his believers if he gave the correct history that had no living memory existing at this late period in time. Second, he didn't smite the writers of the Torah dead for using the New Kingdom. Thirdly God, is more interested in those living without his word, than correcting errors brought about by lapse of time, and history.

Zampaeda, if there was substanical archaeological evidence that Exodus happened in the New Kingdom, i would believe it. But there isn't any. See
The Bible Unearthed, Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. It is the foremost book on debunking the myth that Exodus took place in the New Kingdom.

Again you are free to believe what you learn and are taught, but if the greater world disagrees and can provide evidence that it is right and you're wrong. Well, it is still your choice and i wish you the best.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:08 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Sat Mar 13, 2004 1:49 pm
Posts:914
Location: Long Beach, CA
Sekhmet has stated:
Mastaba's were the tombs of choice for nobles as a rule

In Michael A. Hoffman's book, "Egypt Before The Pharaohs" on pages 267 to 305 he states:
At Abydos, there is an alluvial fan or terrace known locally as the Umm el-Qa'ab (mother of pots) lies the tombs of the first Pharaohs and what some archaeologists believe to be the graves of their immediate prehistoric ancestors...although they became larger and more complex with time, basically they were large open pits dug deep in the ground, around the edges of which were construscted thick mud-brick walls...The (Royal) burial chamber was built in the center, was built of imported timber and roofed by means of wooden planks...the retaining walls were continued upward for a short space and filled with rubble, to create a low, bench-like building or MASTABA."

There were no true pyramids until Senefru, the last Pharaoh of the thrid Dynasty. (Who, incidentally, build at least two, possibly three!) The pyramid shape was born with Djoser's step-pyramid, although, basically, it was just a stack of Mastabas!
I have always understood the pyramid developed from the pit burials, to the mastabas, to the step-pyramid, to the pyramid.


Top
 Profile  
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


  Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Style by web designer custom , optymalizacja seo pozycjonowanie stron pozycjonowanie
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group