66 replies to this topic

[cormac mac airt]

Riaan, on 04 February 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

Joseph's beauty or comeliness is described in Genesis 39:6.

There is no evidence that Yuya had been thrown in jail. The Arabic document merely confirms that this vizier had been alienated from his king, only to be reinstated and elevated at a later stage. This matches Joseph's fall from grace and his later appointment as a high profile figure in Egypt. Yuya must therefore have had a run-in with either Tuthmose IV or his son, Amenhotep III.

Getting past the fact that I don't use the American Standardized Version but the King James Version, which doesn't say "comely", the word "comely" as in "attractive" isn't quite on par with "exceptional beauty".

With no evidence that Yuya had been thrown in Jail nor that he lost favor with the king or his son and was later reinstated there's nothing to support your contention. Because you want it to be true doesn't make it true.

cormac

[Riaan]

cormac mac airt, on 04 February 2013 - 06:21 PM, said:

Getting past the fact that I don't use the American Standardized Version but the King James Version, which doesn't say "comely", the word "comely" as in "attractive" isn't quite on par with "exceptional beauty".

With no evidence that Yuya had been thrown in Jail nor that he lost favor with the king or his son and was later reinstated there's nothing to support your contention. Because you want it to be true doesn't make it true.

cormac

This is not at all the case. In my book I build a complete case which includes the above historical records and my interpretation of it - I simply can't present all of it here. As I have stated in one of my replies above, absence of evidence (concerning Yuya as you claim) is not evidence of absence.

[Abramelin]

Maybe it would be a good idea for you too, Riaan, if you read that pdf I linked to in my post in the "Are Jews Egyptians?" thread:

Queen of Sheba and Biblical Scholarship
©2005 by Bernard Leeman
All rights reserved
Queensland Academic Press
PO Box 227
Darling Heights
Queensland 4350
Australia

Readers have full permission to copy, distribute, and sell this book either in print or as a CD.


http://www.free-mind...files/Sheba.pdf

[Abramelin]

Sheba according to the archeological evidence uncovered in the past few years is proven to be in modern-day Yemen. The research of Kamal Salibi in his book 'The Bible came from Arabia' supports the same view of location, but is based on historic names in the Torah matched against existing names found in the land of Assir (which is in Southern Arabia).

http://www.deenresea...&language=en-US

[Riaan]

Abramelin, on 04 February 2013 - 07:10 PM, said:

Sheba according to the archeological evidence uncovered in the past few years is proven to be in modern-day Yemen. The research of Kamal Salibi in his book 'The Bible came from Arabia' supports the same view of location, but is based on historic names in the Torah matched against existing names found in the land of Assir (which is in Southern Arabia).

http://www.deenresea...&language=en-US

Yes, I am aware that this is the popular belief. Can you explain then why Josephus calls her the queen of Egypt and Ethiopia? Please read all the points I listed at the beginning of this post.

Thanks also for the references, I will read the book, but it will take some time.

[DieChecker]

Abramelin, on 04 February 2013 - 07:05 PM, said:

Maybe it would be a good idea for you too, Riaan, if you read that pdf I linked to in my post in the "Are Jews Egyptians?" thread:

Queen of Sheba and Biblical Scholarship
©2005 by Bernard Leeman
All rights reserved
Queensland Academic Press
PO Box 227
Darling Heights
Queensland 4350
Australia

Readers have full permission to copy, distribute, and sell this book either in print or as a CD.


http://www.free-mind...files/Sheba.pdf

That is a pretty good account of all that I know and have heard, and a lot that I did not know yet.

[DieChecker]

Riaan, on 04 February 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

If Joseph had indeed risen to a position of power in Egypt, in fact, the most powerful man in Egypt second only to the king himself, everyone in Israel would have known about it.

Yes, exactly that Joseph. The Genesis account claims that there were many generations between Joseph and Moses. However, according to Justin in his Epitoma Historiarum Philippcarum 36.2, Moses was the son of Joseph, while Cheremon makes Joseph and Moses contemporaries (Josephus,Against Apion 1.32 (290-291). Both of these are correct - Moses as Prince Tuthmosis was the (grand)son of Joseph (Yuya) and Moses as a boy would have known his grandfather. The Genesis account must be incorrect in this respect and could very well have been doctored to hide Moses' true identity.

So it is all logical, but still is dependant on big time gaps being dismissed and principle characters' histories being re-written. Basing a theory on names alone is always a tricky proposition.

How many people named Joseph, David and Jacob could there have been?? A: Lots.

[Abramelin]

DieChecker, on 04 February 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

That is a pretty good account of all that I know and have heard, and a lot that I did not know yet.

Thank you.

I am a true skeptic, but I won't hesitate to post about a controversial theory when that theory is substantiated.

The theory may be wrong, agreed, but it didn't come from some dork having a daydream/nightmare or by someone 'channeling' some 'entity'.

These quotation marks are getting tiresome.



.

[cormac mac airt]

Riaan, on 04 February 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

This is not at all the case. In my book I build a complete case which includes the above historical records and my interpretation of it - I simply can't present all of it here. As I have stated in one of my replies above, absence of evidence (concerning Yuya as you claim) is not evidence of absence.

And as has been pointed out many, MANY times before when people misuse this saying it's the only evidence we have and one can't (or at least shouldn't) base their position on evidence they don't have.

cormac

[Riaan]

DieChecker, on 04 February 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

So it is all logical, but still is dependant on big time gaps being dismissed and principle characters' histories being re-written. Basing a theory on names alone is always a tricky proposition.

How many people named Joseph, David and Jacob could there have been?? A: Lots.

Sure, but how many of them can be put together in the same setting? In my book I discuss the nature of Sheba's visit to Solomon in Jerusalem and also show that other aspects of the Megiddo ivory match Nefertiti/the Queen of Sheba. Of key importance is whether she went purely because of her curiosity about Solomon (the biblical explanation) or for some other reason. Manetho claims that Moses sent messengers to the Shepherd Kings in Jerusalem, inviting them to join him in his fight against Amenhotep. In the El Arish Shrine text it is recorded (in hieroglyphs) the Geb, the son of King Shu, sent messengers to the Asiatics and foreigners, summoning them to him. Shu and Geb can be shown to refer to Amehotep III and Prince Tuthmosis. This deed is so unique that it must be regarded as a fingerprint - it cannot be denied. The messengers Moses sent were not a small group of insignificant servants, but a high level delegation led by Nefertiti herself. The Shepherd Kings/Asiatics in Jerusalem would have needed some convincing before daring to enter Egyptian territory.

[DieChecker]

And not all theorys are equal. Every idea is NOT as good as every other idea.

Making a claim that alters the generally accepted timeline and requires basically a re-writting of history just to make some obscure esoteric idea work, is just not going to taken as seriously as something that operates within the timeline using accepted evidence.

[DieChecker]

Riaan, on 04 February 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:

Sure, but how many of them can be put together in the same setting? In my book I discuss the nature of Sheba's visit to Solomon in Jerusalem and also show that other aspects of the Megiddo ivory match Nefertiti/the Queen of Sheba. Of key importance is whether she went purely because of her curiosity about Solomon (the biblical explanation) or for some other reason. Manetho claims that Moses sent messengers to the Shepherd Kings in Jerusalem, inviting them to join him in his fight against Amenhotep. In the El Arish Shrine text it is recorded (in hieroglyphs) the Geb, the son of King Shu, sent messengers to the Asiatics and foreigners, summoning them to him. Shu and Geb can be shown to refer to Amehotep III and Prince Tuthmosis. This deed is so unique that it must be regarded as a fingerprint - it cannot be denied. The messengers Moses sent were not a small group of insignificant servants, but a high level delegation led by Nefertiti herself. The Shepherd Kings/Asiatics in Jerusalem would have needed some convincing before daring to enter Egyptian territory.

Then you would have to show that her headdress was SO distinctive that it could only be her.

Anyway, unless you take the Bible as a firm piece of History, the point is Mute, because Moses, Joseph, Jacob and The Queen of Sheba are basically mythic figures. And arguements have raged unfinished about if any of these people even ever existed.

You've built a good case, and probably a good book, but personnally, I just am not sold.

[Riaan]

DieChecker, on 04 February 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

Then you would have to show that her headdress was SO distinctive that it could only be her.

Anyway, unless you take the Bible as a firm piece of History, the point is Mute, because Moses, Joseph, Jacob and The Queen of Sheba are basically mythic figures. And arguements have raged unfinished about if any of these people even ever existed.

You've built a good case, and probably a good book, but personnally, I just am not sold.

Considering your stance on the issue there probably is not much point in continuing with the argument. However, could you please explain away the incident (the sending of the messengers) described in the same detail by Manetho and the El Arish text? Is this merely a coincidence? Did Manetho read the EL Arish text?

[DieChecker]

Riaan, on 04 February 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

If Joseph had indeed risen to a position of power in Egypt, in fact, the most powerful man in Egypt second only to the king himself, everyone in Israel would have known about it.

Yes, exactly that Joseph. The Genesis account claims that there were many generations between Joseph and Moses. However, according to Justin in his Epitoma Historiarum Philippcarum 36.2, Moses was the son of Joseph, while Cheremon makes Joseph and Moses contemporaries (Josephus,Against Apion 1.32 (290-291). Both of these are correct - Moses as Prince Tuthmosis was the (grand)son of Joseph (Yuya) and Moses as a boy would have known his grandfather. The Genesis account must be incorrect in this respect and could very well have been doctored to hide Moses' true identity.

I went back and looked some of this up. Not being familiar with Justin, or Cheremon, I ran some internet searches on these fellow.

Cheremon appears to have been a 1st century Egyptian historian, who is quoted by Josephus (also a 1st century historian) as saying that Moses and Joseph were sacred scribes. But what does this really tell us? After reading part of the Life of Josephus, I can say that it is very likely that he got a good deal wrong, and Moses and Joseph being both scribes at the same time could very well be one of them. By the time he was writing the Life of Josephus, it appears that he was overly interested in politics and that he was no longer impartial as far as History was concerned and that he probably was taking great liberties to try to make political credit with the Romans.

Justim would appear from internet sources to have been a 2nd or 3rd century Roman historian. Who appears to have written about anything and everything. But his Historiarum Philippicarum apparently says in the introduction that it was taken in the main from Trogus's works of history. Trogus was a Roman historian of the 1st century and generally it is believed that he did not gather all his own facts, but that his work was based on earlier works.

So we have much passing of facts about 1000-1400 years after the fact, about King David. This is hardly conclusive.

Still it is a good story.

Edited by DieChecker, 05 February 2013 - 12:35 AM.

[DieChecker]

Riaan, on 04 February 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:

Sure, but how many of them can be put together in the same setting? In my book I discuss the nature of Sheba's visit to Solomon in Jerusalem and also show that other aspects of the Megiddo ivory match Nefertiti/the Queen of Sheba. Of key importance is whether she went purely because of her curiosity about Solomon (the biblical explanation) or for some other reason. Manetho claims that Moses sent messengers to the Shepherd Kings in Jerusalem, inviting them to join him in his fight against Amenhotep. In the El Arish Shrine text it is recorded (in hieroglyphs) the Geb, the son of King Shu, sent messengers to the Asiatics and foreigners, summoning them to him. Shu and Geb can be shown to refer to Amehotep III and Prince Tuthmosis. This deed is so unique that it must be regarded as a fingerprint - it cannot be denied. The messengers Moses sent were not a small group of insignificant servants, but a high level delegation led by Nefertiti herself. The Shepherd Kings/Asiatics in Jerusalem would have needed some convincing before daring to enter Egyptian territory.

According to what I have dug up online. The Shepherd Kings were the Hyksos people of the 15th and 16th century BCE, 3500 years ago. So this would have been even before Jacob and Joseph by at least a couple hundred years. And the term Hyksos was actually misused by Josephus to mean "Shepherd Kings" when it meant "Rulers of Foreign Lands". And I already stated (previous post) how Josephus was political toward the end of his life and his last works should be regarded as such.

It is also suggested that the part of the Osarseph story where he changes his name to Moses was added later. That it was done as late as the 1st century.

Quote

Some modern scholars have suggested that the Osarseph story, or at least the point at which Osarseph changes his name to Moses, is a later alteration to Manetho's original history made in the 1st century BC, a time when anti-Jewish sentiment was running high in Egypt; without this, Manetho's history has no mention of the Jews at all. If the story is an original part of Manetho's history of Egypt, as many other scholars believe, the question arises of where he would have heard it, as the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Torah (i.e., the Exodus narrative) had not been made when he was writing. It is therefore supposed that he had an oral (Jewish) informant, or possibly an otherwise unknown pre-Septuagint translation.

I don't think that an Egyptian sending for aid from the Levant for military aid is a Unique occurance. History, legend and myth from both areas are full of accounts of wars between these regions and pacts and alliances.

Plus Osarseph was supposed to be a Rebel against Pharoah, while Geb & Shu would have been Egyptian Kings. So, not sure how those mesh together.

I'm far from an expert in history, but even with just a quick read of results from Google, I can see the issues you probably had to address in your book.