first let me thank you friend for taking the time and effort to question the Bible story ; )
Posted by observer (here)
Dr. Patton states in the first few minutes of the video as part of his argument against modern archaeological conclusions that "archaeology has proven the Israelites were never in Egypt".
There is no truth to this statement. This is a misconstruing of the facts.
The archaeological record indicates that the Hebrew people were never SLAVES in Egypt.
Ze’ev Herzog a professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University is on record stating that "archaeology has proven the Israelites were never in Egypt"... and this is what the presenter Patton is referring to... a top Israeli archeologist denying the Bible ?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze'ev_HerzogZe’ev Herzog (born 1941) is an Israeli archeologist, professor of archaeology at The Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures at Tel Aviv University specializing in social archaeology, ancient architecture and field archaeology.
In 1999 Herzog’s cover page article in the weekly magazine Haaretz "Deconstructing the walls of Jericho" attracted considerable public attention and debates. In this article Herzog cites evidence supporting that "the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai"
Posted by observer (here)
The Egyptian record is filled with references to a foreign Semite people who were immigrant workers in much of the four thousand year history of Egypt. There is, however, not a single hieroglyph - anywhere in Egypt - depicting these 'Habaru' (the Egyptian name for these Semite people) as ever being slaves. Hieroglyphs have even been discovered depicting the circumcision ritual. These Habaru people were simply foreigners who came to Egypt to work and eventually assimilated into the Egyptian culture.
The Hyksos (Egyptian heqa khasewet, "foreign rulers") first appeared in Egypt during the Eleventh dynasty, began their climb to power in the Thirteenth dynasty, and came out of the second intermediate period in control of Avaris and the Delta. By the Fifteenth dynasty, they ruled lower Egypt, and at the end of the Seventeenth dynasty, they were expelled.
The Hyksos had Canaanite names, as seen in those with names of Semitic deities such as Anath or Ba'al. They introduced new tools of warfare into Egypt, most notably the composite bow and the horse-drawn chariot.
Kamose, the last king of the Theban 17th Dynasty, refers to Apophis as a "Chieftain of Retjenu (i.e., Canaan)" in a stela that implies a Canaanite background for this Hyksos king: this is the strongest evidence for a Canaanite background for the Hyksos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KhyanSeuserenre Khyan, Khian or Khayan was reportedly the fourth king of the Hyksos Fifteenth dynasty of Egypt who ruled approximately c.1610-1580 BC. Khyan, generally has been "interpreted as Amorite Hayanu (reading h-ya-a-n) which the Egyptian form represents perfectly, and this is in all likelihood the correct interpretation." It should be stressed that Khyan's name was not original and had been in use for centuries prior to the fifteenth Hyksos Dynasty. The name Hayanu is recorded in the Assyrian king lists—see "Khorsabad List I, 17 and the SDAS List, I, 16"--"for a remote ancestor of Shamshi-Adad I (c.1800 BC)
so it seems that the Hyksos might have been of the stock of Amorites ; )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmoriteThe era of the Amorite kingdoms, ca. 2000–1600 BC, is sometimes known as the "Amorite period" in Mesopotamian history. The principal Amorite dynasties arose in Mari, Yamkhad, Qatna, Assyria (under Shamshi-Adad I), Isin, Larsa, and also Babylon, which was founded as an independent state by an Amorite named Sumuabum in 1894 BC. This era ended in northern Mesopotamia with the expulsion of the Amorite dominated Babylonians from Assyria by king Adasi circa 1720 BC, and in the south with the Hittite sack of Babylon (c. 1595 BC) which brought new ethnic groups — particularly Kassites — to the forefront in southern Mesopotamia. From the 15th century BC onward, the term Amurru is usually applied to the region extending north of Canaan as far as Kadesh on the Orontes.
The Egyptologist Flinders Petrie and Assyriologist Archibald Henry Sayce analysed Egyptian illustrations of what they identified as Amorites (Amurru) depicted as "white skinned, blue eyed, fair haired". According to Sayce (1889):
“ “The Amorites... were a tall, handsome people, with white skins, blue eyes and reddish hair, all the characteristics, in fact, of the white race.” ”
Sayce further discovered a painting in a tomb (No. 34) at Thebes, belonging to the Eighteenth Dynasty which illustrates an Amorite chief with "white skin and red-brown hair". Henry George Tomkins (1897) an Exeter clergyman and member of the Royal Archaeological Institute also wrote the Amorites were blue eyed and fair haired. Easton's Bible Dictionary also contains an entry stating the Amorites are "represented on the Egyptian monuments with fair skins, light hair, blue eyes, aquiline noses, and pointed beards." The Encyclopædia Britannica, 13th ed., vol. 1, 1929, also contained a physical description of the Amorites from Egyptian illustrations:
“ “Egyptian illustrations of the New Kingdom show the Palestinian Amorites to have been a race much more like the Northern Europeans than the Semites; long-headed, with blue eyes, straight noses and thin lips.”
please show me you're source as it sounds like fiction to me and I can't find the infoPosted by observer (here)
They assimilated so-much-so, that by the twelfth dynasty one of these Semite foreigners became Pharaoh. His name was Amenemhat I.
The interesting thing about Amenemhat I is:This is the record as depicted in stone carvings discovered in Egypt over the past one hundred and fifty years (or so). These discoveries are in direct conflict with the 'story' depicted in the Old Testament.
- He came from the city of Ur.
- He was married to his half sister who was barren.
- Before becoming Pharaoh, Amenenhat sold his half-sister/wife to the previous Pharaoh, Mentuhotep IV.
- Mentuhotep bestowed great wealth and lands on Amenemhat's half/sister wife, allegedly because of her great beauty.
- After a period of time, (it is alleged) Amenemhat murdered Mentuhotep IV and became Pharaoh himself.
- He was the first of (what the Egyptians called) the Hittite Pharaohs, and his rule as Pharaoh began the twelfth dynasty.
please show me you're source as it sounds like fiction to me and I can't find the infoPosted by observer (here)
By the end of the eighteenth dynasty, like Jews the world over, the Egyptian people had become quite tired of these occasional Hittite Pharaohs. So-much-so that Pharaoh Tuthmosis IV was run-out of Egypt.
So, all of the evidence of "Moses" wandering in the wilderness is true and accurate with one big exception:
- Moses was the disposed Pharaoh Tuthmosis IV.
- His Hebrew 'nation' was the disposed Habaru that traveled with him.
- And of course, the Old Testament was simply a fairy-tale story created by the Levitt Scribes to justify the 'stealing of a nation' - Canaan.
- The alleged forty years of wandering was nothing more than the amount of time it took for these 'wandering Jews' to come-up with the fairy-tail so that they could justify their actions.
I'm sorry but it's just sad to read such unsubstantiated rubbish ; )Posted by observer (here)
It has also been speculated by several researchers that the reason the Egyptians were so 'pissed-off' at Tuthmosis was because he had stolen an ancient artifact from his adopted country before he bolted.
The dimensions of the Ark of the Covenant (as depicted in the Old Testament) very closely match the dimensions of the empty sarcophagus in the Great Pyramid of Cheops.
According to many researchers this particular pyramid was (quite possibly) an ancient hyperdimensional weapon - predating even ancient Egyptian history. If this were the case, than this Ark would have been a critical component of that hyperdimensional weapon. An assumption that exactly matches the description of that device the Israelites were carrying around with them in the wilderness.
I think you know that deliberate deceivers and irreverent ignoramuses write books too... but why pick them all the time ??Posted by observer (here)
Everything I've said here is covered in countless books on the subject. All one need do is put-down the Alice-in-Wonderland book called the Holy Bible, and do the research !!!




Reply With Quote