ralfellis

Please do us the courtesy of doing some deeper research, before going into print.


The full cartouche of Pharaoh Nesbanebdjedet is as follows:
http://www.touregypt.net/images/touregypt/smendes5.jpg

As you can see, the beginning of this cartouche contains the glyphs for Amen. Thus the full title for this pharaoh is actually Meri-Amen-Nesbanebdjedet.


Are you going to apologise? The mods sent me a warning, for sugesting you should garnish yourself with the facts before posting. So are you going to also be sent a warning, for calling me a fraud, when it is clear to everyone I was telling the truth? (as I always do)




Come come, now, Spin. You are backing away here, faster than an Italian tank.

If you literally translate the cartouche for Nesbanebdjedet, it says Meri-Amen-Nesbanebdjedet - or for short it may also be read as Amen-Nesbanebdjedet.

I think you will find that - considering the 3,000 years of transmission through many scribes, many of whom did not speak Egyptian - that Amen-Nesbanebdjedet is a direct equivalent of the biblical Ammin-nad-dab.

And I will remind you once more, that this is not an equivalence through the translation of a single name. It is an equivalence derived from:

A series of names in the same order, the same king-name, the same daughter's name, the same army commander's name, the same architect's name, the same city name, the same attributes for the king, the same wife (Sheba), the same gold mines (King Solomon's mines), the same geographical kingdom ... etc, etc, and etc.

If you are saying that all that is merely coincidental, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but I think you will find yourself alone in holding that opinion.





.

semiopen

Because of my deficiencies in Egyptian history, I've found it is difficult to debate Egypto-Israelites head on.

Consider game 7 of the Petrosian-Spassky World Championship Chess Match of 1966 -

Playing the Opponent;s Opening

aa5874

It is extremely difficult to find primary sources for events that NEVER happened.

spin

Either you know that you are misrepresenting the facts or you don't.

As I later explained, your attempt to make "mery-Amun" a part of the name itself is erroneous. Either you know that or you don't. Consider the cartouche of Horemheb:


In the right hand cartouche you can see "mery-Amun" at the top, but the name of the pharaoh is Horemheb, so the cartouche reads "Horemheb mery-Amun", ie Horemheb beloved of Amun. (It is usual to put the deity name at the top or front.) Or the cartouche of Hatshepsut:


Notice the Amun at the top? The jug at the right of the middle register acts as "joined with", so the cartouche reads Hatshepsut joined with Amun. (The front of the lion is /ha/, the half-circle is a /t/, the sitting ruler is /sheps/, the three short lines makes the sheps plural, ie /shepsu/ and a final half-circle /t/. Put it together and what's that spell?) Her name is still Hatshepsut and she adds the epithet, "joined with Amun". This sort of thing is so ordinary in Egyptian cartouches.

If you look at the cartouche of Seti II, he is sometimes recorded as "mery-Amun" and at others "mery-Ptah". His name is Seti. See here. The images are too big to post reasonably. Here's a small one:



The left cartouche reads Ptah in the top register, Seti in the middle (the god Set plus the two feather = /i/), and meren across the bottom, so the cartouche says "Seti meren-Ptah", Seti beloved of Ptah.

Psusennes' cartouche:



You'll note the cartouche also has a "mery-Amun". And on to Sheshonq I:



It is the norm to include these epithets in the cartouche despite the fact that they are not actually part of the name. And as we saw with Seti II, it doesn't have to be the same epithet.

For indicating that you are misrepresenting the facts?

If that is true then it augurs badly for your quality control.


So, when you say something that could be misinterpreted, you wouldn't clarify.

Up to the hyphen you could say it with a straight face. It doesn't represent the name because other things go in the cartouche along with the name. However, following the hyphen is a plain misrepresentation. Can you cite any recognized published Egyptologist who has represented the name as you have?? "Mery-Amun" is common to many cartouches. It is clearly a phrase and your deliberate omission of the "mery" is unfathomable. Either you don't know what you are talking about, or unfortunately you do.

At best you are deceiving yourself. You have manipulated the data, omitted data, fixed data and misrepresented data. As I said, with your actions you could make the Obama administration seem like the Osama administration. It's linguistic photoshopping.

It's not coincidence, it is false representation.

ralfellis

You a digging your hole ever deeper, stop digging!!


So reading the entire cartouche is erroneous, is it? Ok, so which pharaoh do we have here?




Hmm, might this be Amen-Hotep? Including the Amen title? And so when the same ancient scribe/translator read the next of these cartouches, what would he translate it as?





Ah, yes, the obvious translation is Amen-Nesbanebdjed, again including the Amen title.

Ahh, but you know so much more about royal transliterations than the ancient biblical scribe who formulated the list of King David's ancenstors. All hail to your great knowledge in pointing out that the scribe may or may not have made a mistake. We bow before you in supplication, and beg you for another grain of your infallible wisdom.


But the fact of the matter, which you cannot alter, is that the ancient scribe transliterated the cartouche of Pharaoh Amen-Nesbanebdjed as (King) Amen-Nabdab, one of the ancestors of King David.




And perhaps you might enlighten us as to the reason for your vehemence against accepting this obvious conclusion. Is King David your hero, and you cannot accept an Egyptian ancestry for him? Are you a mythicist-minimalist, who cannot accept that anything about Kind David is in any way based upon reality? Or do you simply argue just for the sake of having an argument?

Please do enlighten us, because your forceful reactions thus far probably appear somewhat irrational to the casual observer.



.

Iskander

Is it allowed to accuse an honourable member of this house of the following?:


Originally Posted by spin
. You have manipulated the data, omitted data, fixed data and misrepresented data.

Chili

It is the same allegory that now is replaced with the Rat-catcher of Hamlin to avoid another crusader like Billy Graham was, or Hitler who also had a jail-house conversion to empower him, and Luther and so many more . . . all of them with their eyes 'half open' now and at the same time still 'half shut.'

To wit: to part the water is a forceful entry into the promised land that should be entered by walking on top of it, so we will not be stranger to it when we get there, wherein now the water is the celestial sea that we call intuition. Ever heard of that?

Lukewarm they call them in the bible and those are the once the Chief Priest feared to most in Matthew 27:28 wherein they warned Pilate: "This final imposter would be [much] worse than the first." . . . and then, of course, the Jesus of Matthew and Mark goes back to Galilee again to prove that the Chief Priests were right in the caution they had made DESPITE the fact that precaution had been taken by Pilate, which now is BECAUSE the caution had been taken, but nobody here will understand that either, but in reality means 'one eye asquint' as not fully tradition based as Egyptian instead of Jew.

In a similar vein the ark of Noah is an allegory with 7 different arks stranded on a mouintaintop someplace and that same allegory has been replaced by Advent with Christ among us to welcome home par-ousia, but that must be like greek to you as well.

spin

Your nonsense is being buried.

For some reason you ignored what I said. Fine. "hotep" indicates satisfied and the theophoric is Amun, ie Amun is satisfied. Consider the name Ramses (II), whose birth name cartouche is the right side of this:



It reads (top to bottom, right to left): Amn-mery Ram-ms-s, the pharaoh's name, despite the mery-Amun is still Ramses (formed by Ra). Your logic is to ignore the "mery" and end up with Amun-Ramses.

[For interested parties, Amun is represented by a feather (which gives the "a") a game board (horizontal box with spikes at the top, which gives the "m") and the wavy horizontal line ("n").]

As long as you are blind to the "mery-" you talk nonsense. You have been shown that the cartouche often features more than the pharaoh's name

And the rest is just nonsense.
I'll ask you again: "Can you cite any recognized published Egyptologist who has represented the name as you have?" Obviously, you can't and you know you can't.

We've seen how ralfellis has deliberately misrepresented the name of this pharaoh, ignoring the "mery" and thus breaks the connection of "Amun" to the name. I have shown that indications such as "mery-Amun" are not part of the name and can change from one cartouche to another, as in the case of Seti II, who was sometimes "mery-Amun" (beloved of Amun) and at others "mery-Ptah" (beloved of Ptah). Hands up all you who find his representation of the name credible.

(Take a look at Wiki's representation of the name Psusennes I: on the right there's a box labeled with the pharaoh's common name. The third bar down is labeled "Royal Titulary", click show and you'll see that the authors have ignored the "mery-Amun" altogether, giving his birth name (nomen) as "Pasebakhaenniut". Check out Smendes, whose nomen is given without the "mery-Amun". Do a search for "Amen-Nesbanebdjed"--including quotes--and see how many hits you get. All those 28 I found were repetitions of the same nonsense as ralfellis has posted here, including the Ralph Ellis book. How many of them are by Egyptologists? None. There is no authoritative support for ralfellis's blunder.)

Ever thought of taking up makrame?

ralfellis

To wit:
The biblical parting of the water was actually a consequence of the Thera eruption, which produced the greatest tsunami the Mediterranean has ever seen within recorded history. And the type of eruption that this was, would indeed cause the sea to withdraw, before rolling in once more (to catch out an unsuspecting army).



And we know that the Exodus event was coincident with the Thera eruption, because the Book of Exodus says...

Quote:
And the LORD said unto Moses and unto Aaron, Take to you handfuls of ashes of the furnace, and let Moses sprinkle it toward the heaven in the sight of Pharaoh. And it shall become small dust in all the land of Egypt, and shall be a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast, throughout all the land of Egypt. Exodus 9:8-9


A better first-hand description of the long-range fallout from the Thera-Santorini eruption would be hard to find. And as we know from the Mt St Helens eruption, those exposed to the ashfall did indeed have 'boils breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast'.

Face facts, some of the Torah account is based upon historical events.

And again, I must emphasise that I am an Atheist looking for elements of history that have been missed by the establishent (be that the theological establishment, or the secular establishment)

.

ralfellis

Ok, so you disagree, we get your point. But why all the shouting?

The more you rant and rave, the more rediculous your arguments appear. And as I said before, what is the reason for your overtly assertive rejection? Are you a secret believer, who does not want his precious King David to have been an Egyptian pharaoh?

And this was, of course.....
An Egyptian pharaoh who was every bit as powerful as the 'legendary' King David.
An Egyptian pharaoh who became the leader of a United Monarchy - of both Upper and Lower Egypt.
An Egyptian pharaoh who did indeed marry 'pharaoh's daughter'.
An Egyptian pharaoh who did indeed live off the proceeds of 'King Solomon's Mines'. (note the plural)
An Egyptian pharaoh whose family did indeed rule Judaea.
An Egyptian pharaoh who did indeed have great wealth and prestige.
An Egyptian pharaoh who did indeed have a great temple called the Hetkar (or Heykal).
An Egyptian pharaoh who did indeed live to a great age.
An Egyptian pharaoh who did indeed live just as King David is said to have done.




.