spin

It's called folk etymology. (There are lots of such efforts in the bible.) The Hebrew verb M$H means "to draw out" and the name appears in Hebrew as M$H. "Moses" in fact is the Latin form of the name, the Greek Mwushs (w = omega, h = eta). And let's face it, that the name came from the Egyptian for "born" is only speculation.


spin

Helo

Im still waiting for you to disprove that Khepshef wasnt leading that army.

To show me why Im wrong instead of sitting there telling me about it

You said Now tell me where it says that

Khepshef was his firstborn son, as such he would have had more claim to his father's power than his brothers.

You are demonstrating a remarkably poor knowleage of history. The sun never set on the British Empire....yet they got thier asses handed to them at Isandlwana. Napoleon came to rule almost all of Europe....yet he went into Russia with 600,000 men and left with 22,000. Quintillius Varus led 3 (25,000 men) Roman Legions into the Teutoburg forrest...only to have each and every man slaughtered by the Germans.

And most relevant, the Battle of Agincourt. The heavy French knights, pride of the French army, were weighed down by thier armor and became stuck in the mud. They were mowed down by English crossbowmen

The point is that even the greatest military machines fail occasionally. In this case, the ordinarly successful Egyptian chariots found themselves in a situation they had not counted on and were not prepared for and as a consequence were cut down. As has happened hundreds of times through-out history.

If you had actually read my earlier posts, you'd see that I never claimed it was a valid part of it.

Does the cities name written in Greek on pottery found at the site help you? Or was that planted by Schliemann?

Thats great, except this is not Star Wars we're talking about. If you've got a working lightsabre your willing to part with, Im all over it. But untill then, lets focus on the POINT

Again, go back and read my earlier posts, I already adressed it.

spin

First make a substantive case and I'll have something to deal with. All you've given is empty speculation.

You don't understand methodology. Let me speculate for your purposes: there is a hitherto unknown pharaoh how died when he was drowned when the reed sea closed in on him and his chariots. His death was so bad press that his successors hushed it up. "[Show] me why Im wrong instead of sitting there telling me about it"

First born sons lived and died during Ramses II's reign, each in turn got the nod. It finally fell to one of the later ones to rise to the throne when he was in his 60s, Merneptah.

Shit, I could have saved you the effort of putting out this silliness. Not one of your thingies were analogous, but note that I talked of "improbabilities", not "impossibilities".

The sort of blunder you wanna believe, usually only happened in Hollywood.

Poor Helo.

Oh, so Schliemann found epigraphic material at the place he called Troy. What is your reference for the epigraphy???

Light sabres are a fine example of tradiition developments. I didn't mention them, but what's your difficulty in understanding the tradition development? So light sabres don't exist, as I understand the situation. That fact doesn't change the tradition development. And that means your point is non-existent.

No, you haven't. You simply made an irrelevant comment about how the Hyksos came to power which doesn't reflect the Greek traditions which Josephus refers to. Please read my comment on an ancient literary tradition that relates the Jewish exodus to the Hyksos again (ie an extant literary tradition Josephus preserves which links the two) and deal with it, not simply refer to an earlier comment you made about the Hyksos (post #20, later posts adding nothing), which has nothing to do with the tradition I referred you to. This tradition I mention so that you could see that there need not at all have been any "outright fabrication". So no, you haven't "already adressed it".


spin

EthnAlln

Thanks. I figured there must be a folk etymology involved somewhere, but, as I said, I don't know any Hebrew.

I suppose it's the origin of the name of the Hebrew leader Moses that is doubtful. I never heard there was any doubt about the meaning of the Egyptian term "Moses." One must, of course, be careful of linguistic coincidences. The man who killed the poet Pushkin in a duel was named Dantes, which is much like the famous Italian poet. And the angel of the abyss was named Apollyon, which led some hysterical people to think that Napoleon was the Antichrist, just because of the linguistic similarity.

By the way, since some posters here have mentioned Napoleon's failures in Spain and Russia, he failed much earlier, in Egypt. Like Bush, he won the war quickly, but hadn't reckoned on the insurgency. He abandoned the army in 1799. It surrendered to the British in 1806. That's why the Rosetta Stone (from Raschid) is in the British Museum instead of the Louvre today.

Helo

And your only reasons against what I presented are just as empty

Because the line of succession and the dates for which the different Pharoah's ruled does not leave any wiggle room to sneak in annother Pharoah. He would have had to have been a son of Ramses the Great and all his sons are accounted for.

Yes, lived and died during Ramses the Great's reign, as I stated Khepshef did. After Khepshef, Merenptah was next in line, his rule starting as Ramses the Great's ended. Khepshef would have been Pharoah had he not be killed

Bullshit, it happened hundreds of times in military history. Your grasp of military history is questionable.

Ill have to go back in the books I have to find it, meanwhile, amuse yourself with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_VII

Then tell me why the Hyksos are not mentioned by the Egyptians after they were driven out. The Egyptians should have trumpeted it from the rooftops....but they didnt. Why?

spin

You have presented nothing.

As with Horemheb the lengths of reign were changed. Try again.

Try a decent parallel and stop the empty rhetoric.

Why amuse myself? I have enough to do.

What's all the stuff about the victory of Ahmoses then, as well as all the subsequent campaigns in Palestine? Egypt had been under the control of foreigners for some centuries and it took a few generations to stop being parochial, and by that time we had all the Tuthmosid pharaohs trampling through Palestine.

I referred you to a tradition reported by Josephus -- which he gives in two forms from Manetho (3rd c BCE) of a priest of Osiris called Osarsiph who called himself Moses. The relationship between the Hebrews and Avaris fixes the connection with the Hyksos. There are also later versions he gives provided by Cheremon and Lysimachos of related material.


spin

Helo

Ive had it, you sit there and just cross your arms. Discussion with you is impossible, we're done.

Julian

Helo, it might be useful if you presented some actual evidence rather than speculation. For all we know, it might all have been done by aliens or intelligent sand moles. You are making the claim and the burden of proof is yours, there is not such thing as 'disproving' something which hasn't been proven to begin with. Show evidence or admit that you are only speculating. The parsimonious explanation is clearly that the whole thing is fiction, leaving it up to you to present something other than might-have-beens. It is up to you to explain the total absence of archaelogical evidence using statistics, probability and equivalence, not conjecture.

Julian

spin

Hell, I never thought of that. Did the Egyptians actually use them as charioteers?


spin

xaxxat

They used them to pull the chariots, all the horses having been killed in the 5th plague...