Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History


The Puzzler

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Abramelin said:

What has this to do with the topic?

Nothing, that’s right, Thankyou.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Abramelin said:

The Wikipedia page will give you nothing better.

I know, I looked. 

 

12 hours ago, Abramelin said:

And only just one of the links in my post.

I only saw one page. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this part probably the most interesting of the whole 24 pages, 

The large (ie.Cyclopean buildings) of Mycenae and Tiryns were built in the eighth century.

Thats a good one.

Mycenaeans were literally Phoenicians.

I see this too.

Geometric Ware and Mycenaean Ware are from the same period….

Misleading principles….

 

IMG_1212.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Piney said:

This is a "apologist" webshite trying to prove the Bible is truth.

Hethites…ffs…yeah Abraham bought the plot off Ephron the Hethite….

The field formerly owned by Ephron had a cave and several trees (23:17). Sarah was buried there and later Abraham (25:9). Later on Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and Leah were buried at Machpelah.

Today a large Muslim stone structure covers the cave and marks the spot in Hebron where the field of Machpelah was. Visitors may see the interior of the building, but are not shown the cave.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 3/21/2024 at 10:20 AM, Antigonos said:

No it really isn’t.

Like the rest of the figures in the biblical Old Testament, there’s zero evidence for Abraham’s existence outside of the bible. It’s hard to accept where someone came from who’s never been proven to exist in the first place.

Who exactly is “they” ? What sources other than the Bible are you using to answer this question? Why do you approach ancient history from a biblical point of view?

 

A reasonable explanation for the background of Abraham is the Palestine Origin Hypothesis, which although nebulous, attests an eponymous ancestor-Abraham in a stele of Egypt's Seti I (ca 1289 BCE), and in the general region of Beth Shean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham#Palestine_Origin_Hypothesis

Edited by atalante
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, atalante said:

A reasonable explanation for the background of Abraham is the Palestine Origin Hypothesis, which although nebulous, attests an eponymous ancestor-Abraham in a stele of Egypt's Seti I (ca 1289 BCE), and in the general region of Beth Shean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham#Palestine_Origin_Hypothesis

So we can bring Abraham down to c.1300BC attributed to a stele. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, The Puzzler said:

So we can bring Abraham down to c.1300BC attributed to a stele. 

Puzzler,

I prefer linking the stele of Seti I to an important bible episode at Dothan where some "tribal descendants of Abraham" sold Joseph to Midianites/Ishmaelites (and Egyptians).  Genesis 37:12-28 

Where is Dothan ? Short answer, it was near the major Egyptian administrative city Beth Shan.  Egypt's pharaoh Seti I was active at Beth Shan.

 

Dothan is first mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (Book of Genesis) in connection with the history of Joseph, as the place in which the sons of Jacob (Israel) had moved their sheep and, at the suggestion of Judah, the brothers sold Joseph to the Ishmaelite merchants (Gen. 37:17).

[At a later date] It was the residence of Elisha ( 2 Kings 6:13 ), and the scene of a remarkable vision of chariots and horses of fire surrounding the mountain on which the city stood. It is identified with the modern Tell-Dothan, on the south side of the plain of Jezreel, about 12 miles north of Samaria, among the hills of Gilboa.

Edited by atalante
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, The Puzzler said:

So we can bring Abraham down to c.1300BC attributed to a stele. 

If it were that simple the reality of Abraham would have been accepted long ago.

Edited by Antigonos
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Antigonos said:

If it were that simple the reality of Abraham would have been accepted long ago.

atalante said it, not me….amd it makes perfect sense,

 reasonable explanation for the background of Abraham is the Palestine Origin Hypothesis, which although nebulous, attests an eponymous ancestor-Abraham in a stele of Egypt's Seti I (ca 1289 BCE), and in the general region of Beth Shean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Puzzler said:

atalante said it, not me….amd it makes perfect sense,

 reasonable explanation for the background of Abraham is the Palestine Origin Hypothesis, which although nebulous, attests an eponymous ancestor-Abraham in a stele of Egypt's Seti I (ca 1289 BCE), and in the general region of Beth Shean.

If you wish. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Antigonos said:

If it were that simple the reality of Abraham would have been accepted long ago.

This is the core problem, can we bring Abraham down in time…contrary to what the establishment thinks…?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

If you wish. 

I don’t wish anything, but it’s a good one. The Bible doesn’t nec place Abraham at 2000BC, archaeology does…don’t you see the irony in it all…?

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, The Puzzler said:

I don’t wish anything, but it’s a good one. The Bible doesn’t nec place Abraham at 2000BC, archaeology does…don’t you see the irony in it all…?

So where does the Bible place Abraham?

There are no real dates of things happening in the Bible.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, just to confuse things more: I once had an Israeli collegue while working for Eastman-Kodak, decades ago.

He really believed that the Hebrews descended from people from India.

His 'proof': the symbol called the Star of David. Yes, the yellow star. The ancient Indian people used that same symbol long before the Hebrews even existed as an entity.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Abramelin said:

Heh, just to confuse things more: I once had an Israeli collegue while working for Eastman-Kodak, decades ago.

He really believed that the Hebrews descended from people from India.

His 'proof': the symbol called the Star of David. Yes, the yellow star. The ancient Indian people used that same symbol long before the Hebrews even existed as an entity.

I had a Iranian Zoroastrian AFSC volunteer tell me once the Irish were Iranian and "Arya".

I had to explain to him it was a White Supemacist ideology. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 I think that Loki in Norse mythology could corresponds to Moses in the OT. They both have a magic wand, as Skirnir (Loki) has a magic staff Moses have one, and like Egil Aurvandil (Loki) Moses is rescued from the river.  But in Norse mythology he is no hero, He is bad man.  Just some toughts from me.

Edited by Skirnum
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Skirnum said:

 I think that Loki in Norse mythology could corresponds to Moses in the OT. They both have a magic wand, as Skirnir (Loki) has a magic staff Moses have one, and like Egil Aurvandil (Loki) Moses is rescued from the river.  But in Norse mythology he is no hero, He is bad man.  Just some toughts from me.

Did Loki also lead his people to 'the promised land'? Or divide the waters of the North Sea??

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Did Loki also lead his people to 'the promised land'? Or divide the waters of the North Sea??

No hehe. But I can give you a more detailed answer tomorrow. It is only my own thoughts on the matter that are not supported by anyone with a formal education. So only my own thoughts on the matter.

Edited by Skirnum
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Skirnum said:

No hehe. But I can give you a more detailed answer tomorrow. It is only my own thoughts on the matter that are not supported by anyone with a formal education. So only my own thoughts on the matter.

Good to see you old friend. 🙂

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Skirnum said:

No hehe. But I can give you a more detailed answer tomorrow. It is only my own thoughts on the matter that are not supported by anyone with a formal education. So only my own thoughts on the matter.

Translated to English by Chatgpt.

"I might not be able to explain how Loki resembles Moses, but I can try a brief version.

In Skírnismál, Freyr's servant Skírnir helps Freyr marry Gerðr against her will. Freyr is the king of the people and represents humanity, that's my starting point. Gerðr means fence or enclosure, representing laws and a power structure to maintain the laws of an obedient people against rebellion and war from other powers or people. (somewhat like Moses' Ten Commandments) Skírnir tells the shepherd in the poem that the alternative of "peace" is better than war and killing in troubled times. The shepherd doesn't disagree that murderers should be stopped (he says so to Thor in Hárbarðsljóð), but he doesn't want Skírnir to come to his wife and force her to marry Freyr. Because when Idun (free will) is forced, she becomes a fence or enclosure for lowing cows, similar to blindly devout religious followers.

But Skírnir is invited in, and he threatens Gerðr with his magic wand (like Moses' staff) to do as he wishes. When Skírnir is done with Gerðr, he goes back to the Shepherd (which isn't mentioned in the poem), where the Shepherd takes away Skírnir's wits, causing him to lie in the icy river. The Shepherd takes Odin's ring, Freyr's horse, and the sword that can swing itself from Skírnir. These items are offered by Bragi (the Shepherd) to return to Loki in the poem Lokasenna. Thus, Skírnir is the same as Loki.

So, in the poem Hárbarðsljóð, Thor comes and finds Skírnir in the cold river. He rescues him from the river and carries him in a sack on his back. Thor calls the man Egill Aurvandill. Perhaps also called Lucifer.

I'm still working on the matter, but maybe it's possible to understand the drawing I'm trying to sketch? hehe..."

Edited by Skirnum
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Piney said:

Good to see you old friend. 🙂

Thanks, same to you old fried:-)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Skirnum said:

No hehe. But I can give you a more detailed answer tomorrow. It is only my own thoughts on the matter that are not supported by anyone with a formal education. So only my own thoughts on the matter.

An original idea is always welcome.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s for a minute, imagine I’m not actually defending the idea, because I don’t know much work outside this early thesis…but questioning why he came up with the ideas…

Why does he think  that the Mycenaean fortifications of the Argive plain date to the 8th century? 

IMG_1212.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraion_of_Argos 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Hera,_Olympia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenaean_pottery

I find this one of the most interesting things in Ancient History…did the Mycenaeans really live so far back in time…all the Cyclopean buildings, the Trojan War, prior to this strange dark age, really happen like said…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2024 at 5:00 PM, Skirnum said:

 I think that Loki in Norse mythology could corresponds to Moses in the OT. They both have a magic wand, as Skirnir (Loki) has a magic staff Moses have one, and like Egil Aurvandil (Loki) Moses is rescued from the river.  But in Norse mythology he is no hero, He is bad man.  Just some toughts from me.

They're very different characters.

Loki is a trickster who does things because he "thinks something is a good idea or a funny idea" (as when he tricks Hodur into throwing a mistletoe dart at Baldur, which kills Baldur.)  Loki steals things (Sif's hair, Freya's necklace, Thor's hammer, etc)... Moses doesn't.  Loki has sexual relations with animals (horses, for one) and giants in addition to his wife.  Moses doesn't.  Loki has children who are monsters, one of whom will bring the end of the world.  Moses doesn't.

Moses kills a man who is beating a slave... Loki doesn't kill anyone directly and Baldur certainly wasn't abusing or harming anyone.  Moses is the leader of a group of people - Loki never acts as a leader.  Moses speaks to a deity that the rest of his people can't see or hear.  Loki IS a deity and doesn't pray to anyone.  Moses dies, an honored figure.  Loki doesn't die but is chained up beneath the earth using the intestines of one of his sons (who is killed by the other son who's been turned into a wolf.)  His wolf son will free him during Ragnarok.

There's really no comparison.

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.