Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
sinewave

Archaeological Evidence For Moses

297 posts in this topic

Sorry, SlimJim22, I almost missed this post of yours. I think you know as well as I that you have every right to post material that contradicts something I or anyone else has written. Don't ever let anyone else tell you otherwise. As for myself, I will, of course, respond if something you wrote interests me of if I'm motivated to make a comment, based on my own knowledge base. I am the first to admit that knowledge base does not cover the culture of ancient Greece terribly well. I have never studied Greece to the extent I have Egypt and other ancient Near Eastern cultures. Most of what I've studied about Greece pertains to its interactions with Egypt and the Levant, as well as its military history in the wars against Persia and the Peloponnesian War, so that's pretty restricted.

I have no doubt that the culture that centered around Athens was inspired by neighboring peoples. That's true of all civilizations in that part of the world. You can certainly compare Greek gods with Egyptian gods, but in doing so I think you'll find that they actually do not have much in common. I imagine great Greek thinkers like Herodotus saw similarities in the roles of gods, such as in his own Zeus and the Egyptian Amun. Both happened to be the kings of the gods of their respective cultures, so there is that similarity, but when you dig deeper and delve into the fine details, you'll see that beyond the primary roles, these gods had little in common. And the religions of Greece and Egypt were very different, to boot.

The gods of foreigners certainly found their way into Egypt whenever foreigners migrated into Egypt. Egypt was quite accepting of foreign gods and melded many of them into their own culture, such as the Canaanite goddess Qetesh and the Nubian god Bes. We have no definitive evidence of Hebrews in Egypt until well after the New Kingdom--the time period to which the biblical Exodus is assigned--but of course ancient Hebrews migrated into Egypt, too. As with many Greeks, Hebrews were hired as mercenaries in the pharaoh's army. What's most interesting to me about the history of Hebrews in Egypt for which we can find evidence, is that they were unlike so many migrants who eventually adopted an Egyptian lifestyle. The Hebrews stuck to their worship of Yahweh and even built a temple for him at Elephantine in the Ptolemaic Period.

All right, I've prattled on long enough. I just wanted to reply to that post of yours, and besides, as I sit here waiting for the latest episode of 24, I'm really bored. :lol:

I had all but forgotten about those comments but thanks for getting back to me. Since I posted those coments I have read some extracts from David Ickes' Biggest Secret. In which, he makes the claims that the entire OT was made up by Levite priests in Babylon on orders from the rptilian Babylonian Brotherhood. I don't believe a word of it but I thought it worthy of note as from what you and others have said, evidence of a hebrew people before the captivity is non-existant. So, I see three possibilities i) the orthodox view ii) Ickes' view iii) somewhere in the middle, in that it was manufactured to an extent but modified from pre-exisiting stories and allegories to fit the agenda at the time of writing. There are a few interesting points he mentions if you are interested in hearing more.

I have a couple of other points if you'll bare with me. With regard to the gods I see them fitting together pretty well but we are all inclined to see what we want. Amun Ra as a fusion of Ares and Zeus, consequence of the change of age. P'tah/Poseidon, Nut/Isis/Athena,Minerva, Geb/Hephestos, Thoth/Hermes, Osiris/Dionysus, Horus/Eros and even some diffusion with Sumeria such as Ereshikgal/Hathor/Persephone, Innana/Sekhmet/Artemis/Diana, Nanna/Khnum, etc. Obviously no evidence other than a gut feeling.

Last point regards the ethinicity. The egyptians seem to have always been a mixed race, pictures tell us as much and Pharoahs seem to have been both negroid and caucasian. The Upper Nile having black Pharoahs in the 1st and 18th dynasties but this being affected by the HYskos invasion as well as other white dynasties from the lower Nile. There is really little consequence of this unless some metaphysical attachment to melanin can be drawn as this would have given the black egyptians better means to converse with gods and perform magick of sorts. Interesting that Khem as in alchemy and egypt means black and melanin means black in greek.

Further, to this and I wonder if it is deserving of it's own thread is the gypsies. From India around 250bce migrating north possibly because of Alexanders invasion. They were then recruited to Persia as musicians and slowly passed into western Europe via Corfu. Known as Romani or Roma they are usually identified by dark complexions and their own unique culture. They have mystical ties and get the name gypsy from the erroneous suggestion that they harboured the infant Jesus in Egypt (gyp) before moving north along the coast of north Africa. I accept that this is not true except that they seem to have connections to the Therapeutae (i.e. magick). Don't know what to make of it until you read a folk tale about Jesus (possibly fabricated) whereby a gypsy maid steal one of the four nails from the Romans and this is why he was nailed with three nails rather than four. Obviously, particulalrly as the tale comes in other forms you think it is a later creation but there is siginifance attached to the three nail cross most prominently in the cathar sect. Sorry if it's a lot to adress I am totally befuddled by the matter. Any point anyone can raise would be much appreciated.

Hope you enjoyed Jack Bauer kicking air lol. me too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally received my copies of Cyril Aldred's Akhenaten, King of Egypt, and Aidan Dodson's Amarna Sunset.

Regarding the Egyptian queen who wrote to the Hittite king Shuppiluliumash following the death of her husband, the following:

Dodson [Amarna Sunset, pp. 89-94] quotes the letter as ‘...their Lord Nipkhururiya had died...”. He stated earlier [p. 55] that Amenhotep III appeared in Akkadian as Nibmuariya, Akhenaten as Napkhuriya and Tutankhamun as Nibkhuriya, but later argues in favour of Tutankhamun being the deceased king.

Aldred however uses the form Nibhururiya [p. 229], which suggests that the translation of the Akkadian text is indeed not clear. Of the two forms of the name of the deceased king, Nipkhururiya is certainly closer to Napkhuriya (Akhenaten).

Aldred discusses the interpretation of a shawabti (a funerary figurine) of Nefertiti, which has the inscription: “The Heiress, high and mighty in the palace, one trusted [of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt (Neferkheperure, Wa’enre), the Son of Re (Akhenaten)∣, Great in] his Lifetime, the Chief Wife of the King (Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti)∣, Living for Ever and Ever”

Nefertiti_Shawabti-Akhenaten_King_of_Egypt__Cyril_Aldred_Figure_23_p230.jpg

“Calcite shawabti of Nefertiti restored from two fragments... Like the king’s examples it carries the sceptres and emblems of regal power...” [Aldred, Figure 23, p. 230]

He then states that "The inscription on her shawabti also makes it clear that despite holding of kingly sceptres, the crook and the flail, the shawabti represented her as queen regnant and not as a co-regent in male attire".

To me as a novice this statement is highly confusing, if not non-sensical. The use of the words "heiress" and "high and mighty in the palace" in the inscription certainly seems to suggest that someone (her husband the king) had died, and the mention of Akhenaten, (who was) great in his lifetime also suggests that he was no longer alive, i.e. she had outlived him.

Furthermore, the kingly sceptres would indeed suggest that she was the true ruler of Egypt. Aldred's explanation that she was nevertheless no more than a queen seems to be forced and it hardly constitutes unequivocal proof that she was not a ruler of kingly status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best argument for the queen in question being Nefertiti would still be "Why write to a Hittite king for a husband?". Ankhesenamun, the wife of Tutankhamun and a true Egyptian, would certainly not have preferred a foreigner over an Egyptian nobleman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From "The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by His Son, Mursili II":

Nipḫururiya, who was our lord, has died. A son of his does not exist. The wife of our lord is childless.

Whether Smenkhkare was or wasn't the brother (or son) of Akhenaten, Nefertiti was never childless. As Smenkhkare wouldn't have been on the throne long enough to make any real difference, the only real contender for a pharaoh without a son and a queen without children would have been Tutankhamun and Ankhesenamun. Ay, a commoner by birth, wouldn't be one to whom a queen would want on the throne.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From "The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by His Son, Mursili II":

Whether Smenkhkare was or wasn't the brother (or son) of Akhenaten, Nefertiti was never childless. As Smenkhkare wouldn't have been on the throne long enough to make any real difference, the only real contender for a pharaoh without a son and a queen without children would have been Tutankhamun and Ankhesenamun. Ay, a commoner by birth, wouldn't be one to whom a queen would want on the throne.

cormac

'Childless' may have confused with 'without a son', but nevertheless you may have a point.

Would you care to comment on why Ankhesenamun would have considered making a Hittite prince king of Egypt, effectively placing Egypt under foreign rule? Nefertiti is certainly speculated to have been of foreign origins, in which context it would make sense that she may have desired to have a non-Egyptian husband.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Childless' may have confused with 'without a son', but nevertheless you may have a point.

Would you care to comment on why Ankhesenamun would have considered making a Hittite prince king of Egypt, effectively placing Egypt under foreign rule? Nefertiti is certainly speculated to have been of foreign origins, in which context it would make sense that she may have desired to have a non-Egyptian husband.

IIRC, Horemheb was the presumed heir-apparent of Tutankhamun, but was out maneuvered by Ay, whom once again was a commoner by birth. Therefore Ay had no legitimate claim to the throne. Horemheb, himself, upon acquiring the throne (from Ay's presumed heir-apparent Nakhtmin) erased much concerning the entire Amarna Period and those involved. Regardless of Ankhesenamun's opinion of Horemheb, she wouldn't have wanted a commoner (Ay) upon the throne, and as Suppiluliuma was known as a very strong king in his own right, might have tried to enlist his aid (by way of a son) to curtail if not prevent the situation from degrading any further.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleted double post.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally received my copies of Cyril Aldred's Akhenaten, King of Egypt, and Aidan Dodson's Amarna Sunset.

I hope you're enjoying Aldred's book on Akhenaten, Riaan. I haven't read it in years but I remember that besides being a bit dry, it was very informative and worthwhile. This one is still considered to be one of the most definitive books on Akhenaten's reign. I still haven't gotten around to reading Dodson's Amarna Sunset, which is an embarrassment on my part, but sooner or later I'll get there.

Nefertiti_Shawabti-Akhenaten_King_of_Egypt__Cyril_Aldred_Figure_23_p230.jpg

“Calcite shawabti of Nefertiti restored from two fragments... Like the king’s examples it carries the sceptres and emblems of regal power...” [Aldred, Figure 23, p. 230]

He then states that "The inscription on her shawabti also makes it clear that despite holding of kingly sceptres, the crook and the flail, the shawabti represented her as queen regnant and not as a co-regent in male attire".

To me as a novice this statement is highly confusing, if not non-sensical. The use of the words "heiress" and "high and mighty in the palace" in the inscription certainly seems to suggest that someone (her husband the king) had died, and the mention of Akhenaten, (who was) great in his lifetime also suggests that he was no longer alive, i.e. she had outlived him.

Furthermore, the kingly sceptres would indeed suggest that she was the true ruler of Egypt. Aldred's explanation that she was nevertheless no more than a queen seems to be forced and it hardly constitutes unequivocal proof that she was not a ruler of kingly status.

This shawabti can be misleading if you're not familiar with the iconography and language. For instance, the crook and flail alone are not enough to demonstrate that Nefertiti was a monarch in her own right. Nefertiti was accorded honors and status few Egyptian queens ever possessed, up to and including her own large chapel or shrine at the Gempaaten temple complex at Karnak. A shrine for a queen wasn't that unusual, of course, but the fact that it was located at Karnak, the religious capital prior to Akhenaten's move to Amarna, is significant. Karnak was where kings honored the god Amun and, by extension, themselves. In the Gempaaten it wasn't Amun but the Aten, naturally. Nefertiti's chapel there was called the Hwt-bnbn ("Mansion of the Benben").

Also significant is the relief on talatats found at Hermopolis in which Nefertiti is shown on a boat smiting an enemy captive. I believe this is the one and only relief in which a queen is shown doing this, which was ordinarily reserved for kings and goes back to late prehistory (think of the Narmer Palette). You can view the reassembled relief on this page, from the website of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, where it is on display. You can click the photo, zoom in, and move around the image.

Another thing to consider. The term "heiress" comes from the ancient Egyptian rpat, the feminine form of rpa, which Faulkner translates as "hereditary noble" or "heir" (2002: 148). My own personal belief is that this term derives from the very ancient courtly title iri-pat, which is first attested in the middle of Dynasty 1 and indicated membership in the ruling elite; the term pat probably designated royal kinsmen (Wilkinson 1999: 135-136). The point is, rpa or rpat did not indicate a sovereign or even a direct line to sovereignty, so we can't take it to mean king or even heir to the throne. It's not exclusively a royal title. It was often used in conjunction with other titles to indicate one's high status, such as with the title rpa HAty-a, "hereditary prince and count." In other words, rpa or rpat was an honorific title (Russman 2001: 91). There is no clean or precise translation for rpa, which is the case with many titles in ancient Egypt, so the choice of "heir" merely indicates high status.

Moreover, "high and mighty in the palace" does not indicate sovereignty, either. It simply means someone of great prominence, which Nefertiti clearly was. I did some searching and cannot find evidence for another queen bearing this title (stated as Aat m Hwt, literally "great in the palace," on the shawabti), but there are a number of titles and epithets unique to Akhenaten's reign.

I'll end with something else that needs emphasis. This shawabti clearly shows Nefertiti as subserviant to her husband, Akhenaten. She is described in the glyphs as Hsyt n nswt bity, "favored one of the King of the Two Lands" (followed by Akhenaten's cartouches), which puts her as second in importance to the king. Her cartouche comes last, also indicating a secondary status. She is specifically described in the glyphs as nswt Hmt wrt, "Great Wife of the king" (i.e., the principal wife), but nowhere is she specifically stated to be a monarch. The crook and flail aside, were this shawabti specifically meant to portray Nefertiti as a monarch, her name would be in the dominant position, it's more than possible that her husband's name would not be mentioned at all, and she would be clearly titled as the king. We see this very clearly on the monuments of Hatshepsut but nowhere on the monuments of Nefertiti. I have no problem accepting her as a regent and in fact that much seems clear, but I've never seen evidence to suggest that Nefertiti reigned as a monarch on her own.

If you are a subscriber to or have access to KMT magazine, Riaan, I'd recommend perusing the Fall 2009 issue. You might find Aidan Dodson's article beginning on page 41 to be quite interesting. It's called "Were Nefertiti & Tutankhaten Coregents?" This really has nothing to do with our debate here, but it's an argument that I don't believe anyone has suggested before, and Dodson provides pretty compelling evidence for it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, Horemheb was the presumed heir-apparent of Tutankhamun, but was out maneuvered by Ay, whom once again was a commoner by birth. Therefore Ay had no legitimate claim to the throne. Horemheb, himself, upon acquiring the throne (from Ay's presumed heir-apparent Nakhtmin) erased much concerning the entire Amarna Period and those involved. Regardless of Ankhesenamun's opinion of Horemheb, she wouldn't have wanted a commoner (Ay) upon the throne, and as Suppiluliuma was known as a very strong king in his own right, might have tried to enlist his aid (by way of a son) to curtail if not prevent the situation from degrading any further.

cormac

I've never personally considered Nefertiti the likely candidate for the letter to Suppiluliuma because even the most basic facts do not fit. Now, as far as we can tell, neither Nefertiti nor Ankhesenamun had sons, and nothing in the recent genetic tests of Tut's line would change that understanding as far as I'm aware, but when Akhenaten died Nefertiti was not alone. There were two heirs to the throne if we consider the possibility that Smenkhkare were still alive, and even if he wasn't, there was still Tutankhamun. It would not have been possible for Nefertiti to upset the ascension of a legitimate crown prince, which describes both Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun.

However, when Tutankhamun died, there were no remaining heirs, period. Ankhesenamun was left widowed and in a nasty spot, with the prospect of having to marry either Ay or Horemheb, commoners both.

That said, have you ever read something from years ago but for the life of you cannot remember where? It's in one of my books but there's an old theory I find interesting and plausible, although it must be stressed that there is no proof to corroborate its veracity. The theory goes that Ay came to the widowed Ankhesenamun and suggested she write a letter to the king of Hatti and ask for a prince to become the new Egyptian king. Yes, it was Ay's idea (cue sinister music). Ankhesenamun warmed to the idea and sent a messenger with the letter to Suppiluliuma, who we know at that time was besieging the Syrian city of Karkamis. After the ensuing letter-writing back and forth between Suppiluliuma and Ankhesenamun which resulted in Suppiluliuma's acquiescence, the Hittite king sent off his son Zannanza to become the new king of Egypt. Suppiluliuma was no doubt drooling at the prospect of having such access to the formidable and wealthy Egyptian state.

Now, as you intimated, by all rights Horemheb should've become the next king. He was commander of the powerful Egyptian army and was a redoubtable presence in the court, probably more so than the elderly Ay. But Ay was no fool and his ambitions guided him. He had set it all up by encouraging Ankhesenamun to write that letter to the king of Hatti. Now with Zannanza and his retinue on their way to Egypt, Ay went to Horemheb and told him Ankhesenamun was trying to "recruit" a Hittite prince to be the new Egyptian king (conveniently neglecting to mention to Horemheb that he, Ay, was the inspiration for the idea). Acting mortified, Ay convinced Horemheb to assemble a detachment to go off and intercept Zannanza before he arrived. You can almost hear Ay: "See to this matter yourself. Get rid of Zannanza, Horemheb--at all costs!" So off Horemheb goes, and he is of course ultimately successful in rubbing out the Hittite prince and his entire retinue.

Meanwhile, Ay took advantage of Horemheb's absence. He oversaw the proper burial of the deceased Tutankhamun, portrayed himself on the wall of the burial chamber as the rightful new king (cartouche and all), forced the hapless Ankhesenamun into marriage to cement his ascension, and made it all a fait accompli. It was a done deal by the time Horemheb got back. You can imagine Horemheb finding this out when he returned. "Aw, shucks!"

This is of course mere speculation. No one can even be certain that Zannanza was murdered, although that appears to have been likely. Still, it's kind of a fun scenario to play with. :D

Deleted double post.

cormac

Darn, I was hoping to read it again. :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never personally considered Nefertiti the likely candidate for the letter to Suppiluliuma because even the most basic facts do not fit. Now, as far as we can tell, neither Nefertiti nor Ankhesenamun had sons, and nothing in the recent genetic tests of Tut's line would change that understanding as far as I'm aware, but when Akhenaten died Nefertiti was not alone. There were two heirs to the throne if we consider the possibility that Smenkhkare were still alive, and even if he wasn't, there was still Tutankhamun. It would not have been possible for Nefertiti to upset the ascension of a legitimate crown prince, which describes both Smenkhkare and Tutankhamun.

However, when Tutankhamun died, there were no remaining heirs, period. Ankhesenamun was left widowed and in a nasty spot, with the prospect of having to marry either Ay or Horemheb, commoners both.

That said, have you ever read something from years ago but for the life of you cannot remember where? It's in one of my books but there's an old theory I find interesting and plausible, although it must be stressed that there is no proof to corroborate its veracity. The theory goes that Ay came to the widowed Ankhesenamun and suggested she write a letter to the king of Hatti and ask for a prince to become the new Egyptian king. Yes, it was Ay's idea (cue sinister music). Ankhesenamun warmed to the idea and sent a messenger with the letter to Suppiluliuma, who we know at that time was besieging the Syrian city of Karkamis. After the ensuing letter-writing back and forth between Suppiluliuma and Ankhesenamun which resulted in Suppiluliuma's acquiescence, the Hittite king sent off his son Zannanza to become the new king of Egypt. Suppiluliuma was no doubt drooling at the prospect of having such access to the formidable and wealthy Egyptian state.

Now, as you intimated, by all rights Horemheb should've become the next king. He was commander of the powerful Egyptian army and was a redoubtable presence in the court, probably more so than the elderly Ay. But Ay was no fool and his ambitions guided him. He had set it all up by encouraging Ankhesenamun to write that letter to the king of Hatti. Now with Zannanza and his retinue on their way to Egypt, Ay went to Horemheb and told him Ankhesenamun was trying to "recruit" a Hittite prince to be the new Egyptian king (conveniently neglecting to mention to Horemheb that he, Ay, was the inspiration for the idea). Acting mortified, Ay convinced Horemheb to assemble a detachment to go off and intercept Zannanza before he arrived. You can almost hear Ay: "See to this matter yourself. Get rid of Zannanza, Horemheb--at all costs!" So off Horemheb goes, and he is of course ultimately successful in rubbing out the Hittite prince and his entire retinue.

Meanwhile, Ay took advantage of Horemheb's absence. He oversaw the proper burial of the deceased Tutankhamun, portrayed himself on the wall of the burial chamber as the rightful new king (cartouche and all), forced the hapless Ankhesenamun into marriage to cement his ascension, and made it all a fait accompli. It was a done deal by the time Horemheb got back. You can imagine Horemheb finding this out when he returned. "Aw, shucks!"

This is of course mere speculation. No one can even be certain that Zannanza was murdered, although that appears to have been likely. Still, it's kind of a fun scenario to play with. :D

I have to wonder why Horemheb didn't force the issue of becoming Pharaoh? As commander of the Egyptian army, he should have had more than enough backing IMO to put Ay in his place. In the least, it had the potential of setting off a civil war of some degree.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll probably never know what really happened, but we can be certain Ay was no slouch. As a chancellor and high steward, he was probably better situated within the court than was Horemheb, and had more direct access to the king and queen. Some speculate that Ay was also a prime minister, and I believe while the evidence for this is shaky, if it's true that would have made him only more powerful.

There's also the possibility, as yet not definitively proven, that he was in fact part of this particular royal line, and as such had another way in. For instance, it's possible he was Ankhesenamun's grandfather. While it's icky even to think about, marrying his granddaughter, the widowed queen, would have assured his place on the throne. And let's not forget that by this time he was a very old man, perhaps in his late 60s, and saw that his time was running out. This was his last chance at ultimate power. However it happened, it happened.

And he died around four years later. Egypt was much better situated under Horemheb, who set in line the powerful Ramesside line of Dynasty 19. I've always liked Horemheb. A military man, you know. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kmt, as always a well formulated response! I am not nearly as knowledgeable as you on Egyptian history and have to concede that what you say does make sense. Much of my case rests on evidence provided by Manetho (Achenchres reigned for 12 years, meaning that she would have been Nefertiti and not Ankhesenamun), Rohl (David and Solomon were Amarna contemporaries, imlying that Solomon's Queen of Sheba = The Queen of Egypt and Ethiopia [Josephus]= the Queen of the South, i.e Egypt = Nefertiti) and the Koran [XXVII, 22-24]:

“I found a woman ruling over them, and she hath been given (abundance) of all things, and hers is a mighty throne [i.e. she was the sole ruler]. I found her and her people worshipping the sun [i.e. worshipping the Aten] instead of Allah.”

The woman described by these texts could not have been anyone but Nefertiti. My theory, that Nefertiti was a daughter of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, would explain why Nefertiti would have asked for a Hittite prince as husband. Better so, I would imagine, than the Horemheb plot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean no disrespect to Jewish tradition or those who believe in it and I hope this does not become a brawl but is there any archaeological evidence that Moses was a real person? Do any details of his life correspond with established facts? There have been some posts here recently that directly challenge his existence. I have never had a reason to question the stories and always assumed there was real person or persons behind them. It is clear though that the issue is far from settled.

We know Moses existed because we have physical evidence of his writing -- the Torah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know Moses existed because we have physical evidence of his writing -- the Torah.

No, it's a book that sometimes claims he was writing it, but the writing style changes, ti switches tenses, speaks about Moses in the third person, and ultimately existed much longer as spoken myths and legends than written word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's a book that sometimes claims he was writing it, but the writing style changes, ti switches tenses, speaks about Moses in the third person, and ultimately existed much longer as spoken myths and legends than written word.

In fact the oldest evidence of being written dates around 500 BC... about 1000 years after the "myth".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's a book that sometimes claims he was writing it

On the Origin of Species is a book that sometimes claims Darwin wrote it. What's your point?

but the writing style changes, ti switches tenses, speaks about Moses in the third person, and ultimately existed much longer as spoken myths and legends than written word.

Same is true of the Origin of Species.

Edited by Pythagoro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Origin of Species is a book that sometimes claims Darwin wrote it. What's your point?

Same is true of the Origin of Species.

Hmmm... so I must conclude that you have never read it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Origin of Species is a book that sometimes claims Darwin wrote it. What's your point?

Same is true of the Origin of Species.

Eh... no.

Lets look at what evidence we have for Darwin:

Birth Record.

School Records.

Housing records.

Writings of concurrent people about him.

Writings of concurrent people about his theory.

Information about the voyage of the Beagle.

First hand accounts written by him.

His tomb, his family's graves.

And more, if I could think of it.

None of that exists for Moses, excepting the story told in the Bible. On such evidence, we must also conclude the likely existence of Sherlock Holmes.

As for the book itself, it's primarily written in the first person, dealing with his theory of Natural selection.

Now here's the important part:

Let's say Darwin didn't exist, but we still have the book or theory.

Evolutionary theory does not depend on Darwin, if he hadn't come across it, someone else would have. Darwin is respected as the discoverer of the theory, much like Newton and the laws of Motion, Einstein and relativity, or Feynman and QED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh... no.

Lets look at what evidence we have for Darwin:

Birth Record.

School Records.

Housing records.

Writings of concurrent people about him.

Writings of concurrent people about his theory.

Information about the voyage of the Beagle.

First hand accounts written by him.

His tomb, his family's graves.

And more, if I could think of it.

None of that exists for Moses, excepting the story told in the Bible. On such evidence, we must also conclude the likely existence of Sherlock Holmes.

As for the book itself, it's primarily written in the first person, dealing with his theory of Natural selection.

Now here's the important part:

Let's say Darwin didn't exist, but we still have the book or theory.

Evolutionary theory does not depend on Darwin, if he hadn't come across it, someone else would have. Darwin is respected as the discoverer of the theory, much like Newton and the laws of Motion, Einstein and relativity, or Feynman and QED.

.... additionally to the little fact that Darwin did not come to the conclusions all by himself as ill-informed creationists always pretend, his work was well founded on previous works by John Stevens Henslow, Richard Owen among others and if Darwin would not have published his book Joseph Dalton Hooker would have published the same theory a few month later. Which demonstrates again: There is nothing more powerful than a idea whose time has come...and nothing weaker and more instigating of fanaticism than a idea whose time has past.

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know Moses existed because we have physical evidence of his writing -- the Torah.

There are about two dozen verses in the Hebrew Scriptures which state or strongly imply that Moses was the author. Consider the following passages :

* Passages in the Pentateuch itself:

o Exodus 24:4 "Then Moses carefully wrote down all the Lord's instructions."

o Leviticus 1:1 "The Lord called to Moses from the Tabernacle and said to him, 'Give the following instructions to the Israelites...'"

o Deuteronomy 31:9 "So Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests."

o Deuteronomy 31:24-26 "When Moses had finished writing down this entire body of law in a book..."

* Passages elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures:

o Joshua 8:31-34 "He followed the instructions that Moses the Lord's servant had written in the Book of the Law..."

But nowhere in the Torah is it specifically stated that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch. Even if one believes in the inerrancy of religious scriptures, a case can be made that he authored only parts of the Torah, and that other writers added sections of their own and/or edited the resultant text.

And for info, this has nothing to do with Darwin or his writings, so please refrain from trolling. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... additionally to the little fact that Darwin did not come to the conclusions all by himself as ill-informed creationists always pretend, his work was well founded on previous works by John Stevens Henslow, Richard Owen among others and if Darwin would not have published his book Joseph Dalton Hooker would have published the same theory a few month later. Which demonstrates again: There is nothing more powerful than a idea whose time has come...and nothing weaker and more instigating of fanaticism than a idea whose time has past.

I couldn't remember the names, I remember Darwin was working with one fellow who basically due to health reasons was unable to publish his findings, if I recall correctly. Instead he backed Darwin in his publication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't remember the names, I remember Darwin was working with one fellow who basically due to health reasons was unable to publish his findings, if I recall correctly. Instead he backed Darwin in his publication.

Among others. Dalton Hooker was the nearest to the goal but there were at least 10 other in several countries researching on the same subject plus a botanist that was finished before Darwin but at the time was in the New Guinea jungle researching (don't remember if it was Hinds or Jukes). By the time he came back Darwin had published his work.

But with science sometimes it is like a race: Only who runs over the line first wins, the rest just tried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUERY: Prince Tuthmose Figurines Inscription:

princethutmose.jpg

I have seen this figurine of Prince Tuthmose depicted on a bier as evidence for his death, but the one thing which troubles me is that translations of the inscription always leave out the first part, the first three signs (bold text), I read it in full as:

Hw_13585074421873862915.png

HDi nsw ZA sm DHwty-ms mAa-xrw

The word HDi in Gardener means 'destroy, damage' hence the cross sign a determinative sign for 'split, cut up'

post-136578-0-97969100-1358508861_thumb.

Translation therefore if correct would be: 'Destroy king's son, Sem (Priest), Djhwty-mes, True (of) Voice'

Can anyone please comment on the first part of the translation, am I reading these three signs correctly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUERY: Prince Tuthmose Figurines Inscription:

princethutmose.jpg

I have seen this figurine of Prince Tuthmose depicted on a bier as evidence for his death, but the one thing which troubles me is that translations of the inscription always leave out the first part, the first three signs (bold text), I read it in full as:

Hw_13585074421873862915.png

HDi nsw ZA sm DHwty-ms mAa-xrw

The word HDi in Gardener means 'destroy, damage' hence the cross sign a determinative sign for 'split, cut up'

post-136578-0-97969100-1358508861_thumb.

Translation therefore if correct would be: 'Destroy king's son, Sem (Priest), Djhwty-mes, True (of) Voice'

Can anyone please comment on the first part of the translation, am I reading these three signs correctly?

Almost missed your post. It's an interesting question. Although a straight translation for HDi would be "injure, destroy, damage," an alternate translation is "perished" (see Faulkner, page 182).

It's quite unlikely a crown prince who died too young would be vilified in death, so it's more likely HDi in this case is a reference to the negative aspect of the prince's untimely death. I would favor this interpretation because of the few monuments known for Thutmose, all are in reasonably good shape and none display evidence of deliberate damage in the typical Egyptian manner of damnatio memoriae.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Archaeologial Evidence for Moses?

Will they ever find the body, or bones of Moses, Akhenaten`s bones have never deen found:)

Deuteronomy 34:5-8

So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated. And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.